Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL

SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL
AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 3 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Student Grants

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the changes in provision of student grants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many representations he has received about student grants following the Budget statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): My right hon. Friend and I have received about 1,275 representations to date.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister realise that, if the delegation of extreme right-wing Tory MPs to the Prime Minister gets its way, this may be the last occasion that he has the benefit of the company of the Secretary of State for Education? Does he accept that the cut in student grants to the tune of 10 per cent. in each of the next three years will result in students either applying for a loan or having to give up their studies? Will he admit that the Government have cut 10,000 places from higher education in the next academic year, and are trying to restrict expansion in higher education by putting financial restrictions in the way of potential students?

Mr. Boswell: If the hon. Gentleman is as prolix as that, he will put his place at some risk. As we debated extensively in the House in response to a prayer from the Liberal Democrats a fortnight ago, the answer is that we have a record participation in higher education, and we shall continue that percentage. Incidentally, it is twice as great as it was in 1988. During that period, when we made a progressive switch from grant to loan in the burden of support, the number of students and the participation of young people doubled.

Mr. Pawsey: I hope that my hon. Friend will ignore the ill-considered remarks of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). Given the fact that we now have a record number of students in advanced education, does my hon. Friend agree that it is grossly unreasonable to expect taxpayers to fund the total cost of student support, and that the action being taken to bring grants and loans towards equilibrium is entirely right? It certainly underlines the dichotomy that exists on the Labour Benches about taxation and funding for students.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is entirely right. His view and mine is shared by the Royal Society, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and what I might call the lightly suppressed members of the Labour party. We cannot will the end of higher participation in education and, at the same time, not be prepared to tackle funding, which we are doing.

Dr. Wright: Is the Minister aware that his policy on student support and, indeed, the funding of higher education generally has effectively collapsed? It is now


being made by the Treasury, not by his Department. It is causing massive hardship to students, and it is making it impossible for universities to plan. When will the Government come forward with a properly funded plan for the expansion of higher education and a plan for student support to go with it?

Mr. Boswell: I warn the hon. Gentleman that the taxi meter on Labour commitments is ticking away faster than ever. The fact that there are 1 million full-time students is not a failure of policy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell the House when there were anything like 1 million full-time students under the Labour Government.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we were to attempt to fund the hugely increased number of students—the proportion has gone up from one in eight to one in three—the taxpayer could not stand it? Therefore, we would have to reduce it to a small number. Is that not an elitist policy on the part of the Opposition?

Mr. Boswell: As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right: they are elitists on the Labour Benches. We are delivering a mass and popular participation in higher education on a scale never contemplated by the Labour party. What is more, in conjunction with our friends in the Treasury, we are finding a proper and fair balance of financing to do so.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Hon. Members: Ruskin college, Oxford.

Mr. Skinner: When I went for three months to Ruskin, the students I went with got grants. They did not have to rely on loans, and some of us got the grants from the trade union movement.
Why does not the Minister admit that the system has been a total failure, with £376 million being spent on loans and only £5 million being paid back, while the system is costing £11 million to administer? Is not one of the reasons why students cannot pay the money back because most of them cannot get jobs in the tinpot Britain run by this Government?

Mr. Boswell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman said that he received a mandatory award for his brief sojourn at Oxford university. He certainly has a PhD in ranting. Every single figure given by the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and last year the additional student numbers of over 70,000 were equivalent to six new universities. Where is the elitism there?

Grant-maintained Status

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the financial benefits of grant-maintained status.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): The key benefit is that the school controls 100 per cent. of its budget. Decisions can be taken quickly by those who know and care most about the needs of the school. Self-government enables schools to get good value for money and to spend that money where it really counts: in the classroom, on children.

Mr. Gill: In the light of that answer, and given the fact that there is far greater motivation in grant-maintained

schools among both pupils and staff, does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the lingering opposition to grant-maintained status is purely ideological?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and, happily, there is no ideological opposition in my hon. Friend's county of Shropshire, where 11 schools were balloted on grant-maintained status and all resulted in overwhelming yes votes.

Mr. Steinberg: Despite the blatant bribes that the Government have made to opt-out schools, and despite the vast amounts of money that have been spent on advertising opt-out schools, the policy is a failure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] The previous Secretary of State for Education told us that there would be an avalanche—

Hon. Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question from the hon. Gentleman. It is Question Time, after all.

Mr. Steinberg: The previous Secretary of State told us that there would be an avalanche of schools opting out. That has not happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Secretary of State aware that, in my constituency, not one school has opted out? Will he give an assurance that he will continue the ballots for opting out, and that he will not force schools, in particular, secondary schools, to opt out without a parental ballot?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman does not give good value to the National Union of Teachers for its sponsorship. He cannot even ask a proper joined-up question without prompting from you, Madam Speaker.
We have no intention of changing during this Parliament our general election pledge on the conduct of balloting for grant-maintained schools. I am happy to tell the House that, today, some 530,000 children are being educated in grant-maintained schools—that is about 16 or 17 per cent. of secondary school children. It is a popular and progressive policy.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the financial disbenefits which are beginning to creep in for grant-maintained schools? Local authorities that are dominated by the Labour party and by the Liberal Democrat party are starting to take retaliatory action against them. Is that not typified by Essex county council, which is proposing to withdraw—almost at point blank notice—the boarding allowance for Hockerhill school in Bishops Stortford?

Mr. Patten: That is a disgraceful act; it is typical of the dirty tricks of Lib-Lab councils up and down the land. Only yesterday afternoon I saw one of my hon. Friend's county council colleagues to compIain about exactly that practice in Essex, and only last Friday, when I made a state visit to Swindon, I heard similar compIaints from councillors and teachers at grant-maintained schools there about the actions of the Lib-Lab pact in campaigning viciously and untruthfully not only against grant-maintained schools but against denominational schools. I bet that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) does not realise that her friends in Swindon want to stop denominational schooling in Wiltshire, which is a disgrace.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in the current advertising campaign—


paid for by taxpayers' money—to advocate grant-maintained status for schools, one of the advertisements for Hatchford school states that that grant-maintained school has been able to reallocate its funds for benefits in the classroom? Would it not have been more honest to say that the reallocation has meant that £68,000 was taken from neighbouring schools? Does not that demonstrate a clear breach of his departmental guidelines on advertising information about grant-maintained schools?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong—the advertisements contain factual information only. There is a level playing field. There are many differences between grant-maintained schools and maintained schools in terms of how they get their money, whether they have to pay value added tax and whether they can look to the county council or the local education authority to vire money from other capital programmes to capital programmes for grant-maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman must brief himself a bit better. Unless he is careful, I shall pay a state visit to Bath and deal with him.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are equal proportions of able, disadvantaged and poor children in grant-maintained schools and state schools, and that, when the Labour party continually attacks those schools, it is attacking poor and disadvantaged children—and it does not care?

Mr. Patten: I do not think that the Labour party has had an original idea in 15 wasted years in opposition. It has not advanced educational thinking one iota. My hon. Friend, with his long experience as a deputy head teacher, is right: our comprehensive grant-maintained schools, which are the majority, produce very strong results with children from all backgrounds.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Secretary of State realise that parents and school governors, as well as some Conservative councillors, have rumbled him and now realise that the rewards to grant-maintained schools for their political correctness are running out? Will he confirm that two out of three grant-maintained schools have not received any capital allocation whatsoever for the year 1994–95, and that the abolition of cash protection for GM schools means that they will lose £8·.2 million in annual maintenance grants? As it is now obvious that Government targets for GM schools will not be reached, will the Secretary of State tell us whether that is why he is threatening to nationalise all secondary schools? What does that say about his respect for parent power—or is he just a bad loser?

Mr. Patten: I do not know how the hon. Lady manages to speak with such apparent authority about grant-maintained schools. I understand—I will of course be corrected if I am wrong—that she has never visited one.

Mrs. Taylor: Yes, I have.

Mr. Patten: I am very sorry. I understood that she had not. I am glad that the hon. Lady has done so, because I would not like those on the Labour Front Bench to carry out a policy of educational apartheid by trying to marginalise grant-maintained schools.
The hon. Lady really cannot criticise a policy of devolving power to parents, which is admired in most of the western world and is one of the most original of our policies of the past 15 years, when, over the same period,

there has been no original thinking on education policy from her or her hon. Friends—15 wasted years. If the hon. Lady were subjected to an educational brain scan, there would not be a flicker on the screen.

A-level Results

Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what conclusions his Department has drawn from the A-level results in England in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): The 1993 results confirmed that GCE A-levels are popular and successful qualifications. More of our young people are taking them, more are passing them, and more are getting good grades than ever before. The recent report by the Office for Standards in Education has confirmed their reputation for quality and rigour.

Sir David Madel: Are the Government considering changes in the A-level system in view of the fact that the number of candidates for science subjects dropped in 1993, and that both Government and industry are keen that many more people should have A-levels in science and then go on to university?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. With his wide educational knowledge, he knows that, under the national curriculum, all young people are now required to take maths and science until the age of 16. Many of us trust that that will ensure that more students come to recognise that those subjects are neither boring nor, worse, only for boys—some of the myths that are spread. In due course, that will ensure that a greater number carry on to post-16 studies, whether via A-levels or via the new vocational qualifications.

Undergraduates

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many university undergraduates there are in England and Wales.

Mr. Boswell: The Government's policies have led to record student numbers and participation in higher education. There were some 755,000 undergraduates studying in England in 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Devlin: Does not that significant increase in the number of people studying at our universities show how wrong people were three or four years ago to argue that the introduction of student loans would mean a decline in the number of people applying to go to university? Is it not a welcome feature, and a real achievement of the Government, to have got so many talented young people into higher education, including at the two new universities on Teesside?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I recognise the role of the two new universities on Teesside. Since 1988, the proportion of young people entering higher education has risen from 15 per cent. to more than 30 per cent.

Mr. Rooker: Notwithstanding the increase—the equivalent of a dozen or more civic universities in recent years—achieved by craimming students into existing facilities, is it true that, as a result of the decline in the staff-student ratio in universities, the vice-chancellors were warned privately by Ministers not to speak up about threats to quality because that would cause further problems with the Treasury?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman seems to have had some problems with his own party. We have no problems with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. We are currently engaged in debating issues of quality. My right hon. Friend and I are determined to assert higher quality, and we shall see some of the vice-chancellors and principals this afternoon at 4 o'clock.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the need for a balance between the cost to students and their families and to the taxpayer, and the point about student numbers. Will he continue to emphasise the lessons to be learned from international comparisons in funding in that respect? Will he also pay attention to the use and administration of access funds and, in conjunction with this colleagues in the Department of Social Security, to support for students during the long vacation in the recession, when many have been unable to find jobs?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend will know that we decided, at the time of the introduction of student loans, to discontinue the general pattern of students' access to benefits. We did that alongside an increase in the funding package, which amounts to approximately one third extra for students who avail themselves of a loan. We continue to take account and careful note of authoritative studies on any student financial problems, and we recently reflected that with an increase of some £2 million in the sum provided for access funds in higher education for the coming year.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Minister come clean with the House and the country and confirm that he has been trying to get higher education on the cheap? Is it not the case that, thanks to Treasury diktats, next year 10,000 fully qualified intending students, who are as well qualified as those who went into higher education this year, will be denied a place because of his policies?

Mr. Boswell: Once again, the taxi meter is ticking, and my hon. Friends will be taking careful note of it. The participation of young people in higher education is at record levels, and the numbers will remain at records levels over the next three years. I regard that as a success and, if anything, a compliment to the Treasury and to my colleagues, because we have achieved it, whereas the hon. Gentleman has yet to answer the question I recently put to him. How does he propose to pay for whatever he proposes to do, which he will not tell us?

Nursery Education

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on nursery education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): The Government's policy is to

promote choice, diversity, quality and cost-effectiveness of pre-school provision in the poublic and private sectors. More than 90 per cent. of three and four year-olds now receive some form of provision—more than half of them in maintained nursery and primary schools. We are now exploring ways of adding still further, as resources allow, to the choice parents have.

Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although there is excellent provision for nursery education in Stoke-on-Trent, there is virtually none in the rest of Staffordshire? Does he consider that fair?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows well that the extent and nature of provision is entirely a matter for the local education authority. I should have thought that his local education authority would find it extremely difficult to justify its position to its electorate if its provision of nursery education were unevenly and unfairly distributed, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister realise that he has just made it clear that the Government do not seem to want to adopt a policy on nursery education? Does he accept that that attitude has left Britain at the bottom of the European league of nursery education providers? Is he happy with a policy under which whether one's child gets nursery education depends on where one lives and not on the child's needs? When will he ensure that young children in Tory areas get as good access to nursery education as those in Labour Walsall, Cleveland and Birmingham?

Mr. Forth: I wonder which of the hon. Lady's colleagues she agrees with? Would it be the Labour conference in 1993, which said:
nursery education to be available as of right to children from the age of four"?
Or does she agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on the Labour Front Bench who said about a year ago
The Labour party is, and always has been, committed to pre-school provision"?
Or does she agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who said on radio just the other day:
there are no manifesto commitments at this stage … there is no commitment to spend money on anything"?
It is time that Labour Members came clean.

Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have choice and diversity in the provision of pre-school education? Does he further agree that we should congratulate the work of the Pre-School Playgroups Association, which does a tremendous amount of good work for children throughout the country? The Opposition never acknowledge that good work.

Mr. Forth: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is part of the hidden agenda of Labour Members. By implying that they will extend mandatory provision for pre-fives but not telling us how they would pay for it, they are threatening the existence of the excellent pre-school playgroup movement to which my hon. Friend alluded. We acknowledge the excellence of that provision and want to promote continued choice and diversity for children up and down the country.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister tell us—calmly, if he can—whether the Secretary of State ever speaks to the Prime Minister? If so, can he clear up the Government's shambles on nursery education? Last year, the junior


Minister said that I had an obsession with nursery education. As the Prime Minister now says that he is mad keen on nursery education, will the Minister clear up the confusion in the Conservative party and tell us, yes or no: do Education Ministers back the Prime Minister? Do they favour universal nursery education?

Mr. Forth: I think that the House will be much more interested in knowing whether—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer—the hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), shares her obsession with nursery education. From what I said a moment ago, it would appear that he does not. The direct answer to the hon. Lady's question is this. In an excellent speech to the north of England education conference only a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
The Prime Minister and I are therefore keen to find ways of helping to extend over time the amount of nursery schooling available.
I hope that that answers the hon. Lady's question.

Dearing Report

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what survey his Department has undertaken of the views of classroom teachers on the Dearing report on the national curriculum and testing.

Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what responses he has received to the publication of the Dearing report on the national curriculum and testing.

Mr. Patten: I understand that teachers as well as almost all their associations and unions have since reacted with general enthusiasm for the report's main recommendations. They have, as the House knows, been accepted in full by the Government. I hope that we can continue to raise standards in our schools in the interests of pupils.

Mr. Greenway: From the school visits that I have made in my constituency, it is clear that heads and teachers hold Sir Ron Dearing in the highest possible regard. Given that he had a free hand with his inquiry, which was entirely independent, and that the Government have accepted all his recommendations, what possible justification can there be for any further disruption in our classrooms? Will my right hon. Friend call on the National Union of Teachers to copy the example of other teacher unions and call off the threat of industrial action.?

Mr. Patten: I was a bit surprised to learn that the National Union of Teachers is the only one of the teachers' associations and unions that has not accepted Sir Ron Dearing's report and is still unfortunately thinking of continuing the boycott. That is regrettable in the interests of our children. I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will make known her views on the stance of the National Union of Teachers and use her best endeavours to ensure that the curricular and testing changes recommended in the report go through smoothly in the interests of precisely the good performance of schools that my hon. Friend has seen in his constituency.

Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a year ago I had a great deal of sympathy with the concerns, expressed by head teachers in my Worcester constituency, about the way in which we were approaching a national

curriculum and testing? Is he aware that, a year on, those concerns have been entirely put to rest by the publication of the Dearing report? The report underlines the importance of the national curriculum and effective testing in our schools. Against that background, will he ensure that his Department follows, to the letter and the spirit, the report in the coming months and years?

Mr. Patten: Yes, I have accepted the report's recommendations in full. They have gone down very well in the classroom, as I saw in a school in Bristol only last Friday afternoon, where I talked to heads and, privately, to trade union members in a number of trade unions. It is an unfortunate reflection on the present state of one of the teachers' associations and unions that it uniquely wishes to continue, perhaps, to boycott testing in our classrooms. I cannot see that that reflects a modern attitude to education. I cannot imagine that a thoroughly modern Labour party would back that sort of action. I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury does not.

Mr. Enright: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the considerable part played by local education authorities in the delivery of the national curriculum? Will he put his mind to considering the report on religious education that was sent to us this morning by his noble Friend the Minister of State and acknowledge that if central funding is taken away from local education authorities, the delivery of the curriculum will be quite impossible?

Mr. Patten: With his long-standing interest in these matters, the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that yesterday my Department issued new guidance to local education authority schools and to grant-maintained schools about the proper conduct of religion education in the classrooms of all state schools, and the critical importance of a daily act of worship and regular assemblies in schools, which, alas, is not taken as seriously in some of our schools as it should be.

Mr. Dafis: I wonder whether His Royal Highness might honour us with a state visit to Wales, in which, having studied the recent report of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, "Towards an Education Policy for Wales", he could speak to the institute about it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is much validity in the suggestion in that report that we in Wales should be looking beyond England for our standards and for ideas on developing the curriculum in Wales? Will he now ensure that he has a meeting soon with the Secretary of State for Wales to consider ways to strengthen the autonomy of Welsh educational institutions, including the Curriculum Authority for Wales, and other aspects, too?

Mr. Patten: My writ does not run as far as Wales, so I shall not be able to accept the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation and make an official visit; however, I am prepared to go privately. As for my having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, ours is a long-standing and close political friendship dating back 20 years. We talk about these great issues most days of the week, and there is not a razor blade's distance between us.

Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend take careful note of Sir Ron Dearing's comments to the effect that rigorous national testing should remain an integral part of our state education system? While my right hon. Friend


and his colleagues set about welcoming the Dearing recommendations—which are indeed welcome, being designed to reduce teacher work loads—will he also ensure that the Government do not lose sight of that important principle?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: I agree with all that he has said. I also think that all hon. Members in all political parties should concentrate, in the development of our education policies, on trying especially to help the 40 per cent. of boys and girls—young men and women—who have the greatest difficulty in achieving. It is in that regard that we seem to lag behind too many of our continental, Japanese and north American competitors; and it is in that connection that testing, based on the national curriculum, is likely to produce results that are not just good for the country and for schools, but good for individual boys and girls.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Let me remind the Secretary of State that all the teacher unions have accepted in the Dearing report those recommendations whose educational content is positive. May I point out that the unions accepted those recommendations because, for the first time, someone who had some influence over the Government had listened to what they had to say? The National Union of Teachers wants to continue teacher assessment, which Sir Ron Dearing says is more important than the tests themselves; the other two teacher unions want to continue only the tests, not the assessment. If the Secretary of State makes the tests a pilot for this year, he will find that he has everyone behind him.

Mr. Patten: Oh dear, oh dear. That just shows that there are differences between teacher unions and associations —which is perfectly reasonable as they are free agents. It also shows that there are considerable differences and confusions among Labour party members, who cannot give a straight answer. The straightest possible advice has been given by Sir Ron Dearing, not only in his report but in a number of recent statements. He has said—referring directly to the NUT, which he has named—that national testing should go ahead this summer. If it did not, that would be a terrible slap in the face for him.

Technology College Status

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have now expressed an interest in obtaining technology college status.

Mr. Patten: There has been a very encouraging level of interest from schools and businesses. More than 200 schools have made inquiries to my Department or the City Technology College Trust on the technology college initiative.

Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the particular need of industry in my part of Lancashire for training in technology, science and maths, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give special consideration and support to St. Aidan's school in my constituency if it decides to apply for technology college status?

Mr. Patten: Two hundred schools have already shown an interest in acquiring such status. We will certainly

consider any application from the school in my hon. Friend's constituency, but it had better get a move on: there is a pretty long queue.

Mr. O'Hara: Does the Secretary of State recall that when the programme for the establishment of city technology colleges was first conceived in the late 1980s, two principal claims were made for them—that they would attract sponsorship from private industry and that they would become beacons of excellence in the system? As the House well knows, the first claim quickly foundered and the taxi meter has been working overtime ever since. Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was put into the city technology colleges. Moreover, according to the latest Ofsted report, not a single college has established itself as a beacon of excellence. Is not it time for the Secretary of State to apologise for squandering taxpayers' money, which could have been better spent on meeting the wider needs of the education service, on a misguided experiment?

Mr. Patten: Technology is vital. We have 15 excellent city technology colleges. Has the hon. Gentleman ever visited one of them? Unfortunately not, I think. I should very much like to take him along to one. We are attempting, in co-operation with business and industry and with a large number of schools, to ensure that the good practice of the city technology colleges is more widely disseminated. I hope that, when money allows, this idea will be extended to schools specialising in languages, schools specialising in business and—who knows?—schools specialising in the performing arts, one of which might be named after my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).

Student Unions

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the proposed changes to student unions.

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend has received about 1,300 representations since the Education Bill was introduced.

Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that thousands of students wish to have the freedom to decide for themselves whether to belong to a student union? Does not this contrast with the complacency and—dare I say it? —the arrogance of some vice-chancellors, some peers and several Opposition Members, who think that the principle of voluntary membership is not important? Will my hon. Friend improve the Education Bill by making it spell out the voluntary principle more clearly so that we may abolish the student union closed shop once and for all?

Mr. Boswell: The House may have noticed, in relation to an answer that I gave a moment ago, that the number of representations on this matter is running marginally ahead of the number of those concerning student support. One of the interesting representations is that of my hon. Friend. I can confirm that we are determined, through our Bill, to secure the principles of choice, democracy and accountability and to ensure that these are universally observed in the activities of student unions. That we shall do.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has the Minister considered the representations from organisations such as Student Community Action in my constituency of Cambridge, which does an enormous amount of good work in the community? Does not he think that, in their educational experience, students derive enormous advantage from helping such charities? Or does he care?

Mr. Boswell: As one of the Members of Parliament who have been active in student affairs in the past, I can confirm that our intention is not to frustrate student services or the proper carrying out of student activities. What I regret is the way in which a number of people, whether by accident or by intention, have caricatured our proposals, suggesting that they may, in some way, curtail those activities. We are providing a mechanism for the proper control of public funds. It will be open to institutions to fund activities.

Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents who are taxpayers do not want to see their money spent by student unions on politically motivated campaigns? Does he agree that Labour Members are unelectable as a Government while they think that taxpayers' money should so be so used?

Mr. Boswell: Yes; my hon. Friend holes in one.

School Buildings

Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss the state of school buildings.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, met representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 20 July 1993 to discuss a number of issues, including the state of school buildings. Ministers and officials continue to meet representatives of the local authority associations on a regular basis.

Mr. Litherland: The Minister will be aware that local education authorities wanted to spend £1·5 billion on a three-year programme just to bring schools up to an acceptable standard. As large authorities such as Manchester want to spend—or need to spend—£1 billion over 10 years, does he agree that the situation is not only deplorable but potentially dangerous? Is not he ashamed of the Government's attitude to the well-being of our teachers and children?

Mr. Forth: I can confirm that most local authorities seem to want to spend more money most of the time, but that is nothing very new. The hon. Gentleman and the House should be aware that the National Audit Office report of 1991 said that many schools were in an acceptable or better state of decoration and repair and that schools were safe places in which to learn and work. It estimated that some £2 billion, at 1990 prices, was required to put schools to rights. I can confirm that £2 billion of capital expenditure was spent between 1986–87 and 1989–90 and that about the same amount again will be spent over current years. Efficient authorities can ensure that their schools are fit places in which to be taught, and I hope that they will all do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Gillan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the combination of BMW and Rover, creating the largest specialist car manufacturer in the world, is good news for Rover, for its work force and for the United Kingdom? Given the demand for Rover cars around the world, especially for the Land-Rover, does he agree that this is a far cry from the days when Rover was a state-run bankrupt shambles, producing cars that nobody wanted to buy?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the new arrangements will provide new export markets and more investment for Rover. BMW will be able to offer Rover access to new markets—for example, in Germany and the United States, where the Rover network is weak. With a world-beating product and that link, the prospects for Rover are excellent.

Mr. John Smith: In the light of that answer, is it now the Government's definition of success for a British company that it is taken over by a foreign competitor?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should catch up with the modern world. He simply does not understand how free markets work. Only a few weeks ago, he welcomed the Government's achievement in working for a successful conclusion to the GATT round. GATT stands for free trade. That means companies trading and buying across national boundaries. He may know that Marks and Spencer owns Brooks Brothers in the United States; Grand Metropolitan owns Jack Daniels; John Swire owns Cathay Pacific; and Hanson, GEC and Racal own foreign companies. That is the world in which we live, not the 1960s, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman covets.

Mr. John Smith: I deduce, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish to make interventions, perhaps they will resume their seats in the normal manner.

Mr. John Smith: I deduce from that rambling and defensive answer that the right hon. Gentleman believes that a takeover is a sign of success. Why does he think that that view is not held in Germany, France and Italy, which care about keeping their own car industries?

The Prime Minister: I deduce from that pre-prepared second question—[Interruption.]—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to the answer. Is he suggesting—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—does not like the fact that we know that he usually has all three of his questions written out, but is he suggesting that some form of protectionism is correct? Is he suggesting that we should have intervened to stop the sale? Is he suggesting that the ramshackle British Leyland that went into the private sector would have been the successful Rover that it is today but for that privatisation?

Mr. John Smith: Is not the truth that the deal has been done not to further the long-term interests of the British car industry but to satisfy the short-term need of British Aerospace for cash? Is that a good reason for losing our only independent car producer? Did the Prime Minister know of the deal when he told business men in Leeds that he was "betting on Britain"?

The Prime Minister: I was unfair on the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He should have stuck to his written question, which undoubtedly would have been a good deal better. BMW spent £800 million on Rover because it sees the potential for growth and prosperity. That would never have occurred if the right hon. Gentleman's policy had kept Rover in the public sector. We would have had the drip, drip, drip feed of public expenditure maintaining British Leyland, not a privatised, world-beating company.

European Council

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of public borrowing by member states and institutions of the European Union.

The Prime Minister: The member states of the European Union have already recognised the need to avoid excessive budget deficits. That objective was included in the broad guidelines on economic policy adopted by the Economic and Finance Council last December.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Prime Minister showed great courage in facing up to the unpopular task of resolving our national finances, will he, in the light of the recently published figures, seek to persuade his continental partners and the EC institutions to follow Britain's splendid example of controlling borrowing instead of following the spendthrift policies promoted by Mr. Jacques Delors and the British Labour party?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly seek to do as my hon. Friend suggests. We have taken tough decisions domestically about public expenditure. I believe that those are the right decisions for the British economy. At Edinburgh, we took a step towards controlling Community expenditure. I welcome that step, which means tighter restraint and control. In answer to one part of my hon. Friend's question, I am not sure whether I shall be able to persuade the Labour party. Last year, it called for a European recovery fund costing £77 billion, a public expenditure commitment which seems to have escaped the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 29 November the House, by a rather arcane procedure, approved the establishment of a European investment fund, and that while that was under the auspices of the European

investment bank, the people responsible for providing guarantees of £2,000 million for private and public purposes had positions of great patronage? In what way are those people responsible to the Government and to the House?

The Prime Minister: Part of the funding to which the hon. Gentleman refers was funding that has for a long time been in the European Community budget. Those people are answerable through the Commission to the European Council and hence to this and other Governments.

Engagements

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiative of the Secretary of State for Education, who has today announced measures to combat truancy? Does he further agree that the main responsibility for ensuring that children attend school lies not with teachers but with parents?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Truancy is a terrible problem in schools and one which needs increasingly to be tackled with the head teachers and with the staff in the schools. All too often, the child who is found loitering on the street subsequently gets into trouble with the law. That is a problem which we need to tackle, Government and schools together, and we are determined to do so. That is one of the reasons for publishing performance tables, which help to reveal the size of the problem. It is a pity, to put it mildly, that the Opposition talk about the problem but argue against one way of dealing with it.

Mr. Ashdown: It is now some three weeks since the Prime Minister told us of his personal determination to open Tuzla airport—"as soon as possible", in his words —for humanitarian aid to Bosnia. Is he able to tell us what steps he has taken to fulfil that commitment, and in what time frame we might expect it to happen?

The Prime Minister: I also told the right hon. Gentleman that we would take the advice of the commanders on the ground. That is most certainly what we will do and the right hon. Gentleman will learn what is happening when we have had that advice and when we have taken the action that is appropriate.

Sir Ralph Howell: May I remind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the excellent and far-sighted speech that he made a year ago—[Interruption.]—at the Carlton club—[Interruption.]—in which he suggested that the unemployed might be offered work or even required to work? May I thank him for setting up the North Norfolk action pilot scheme, which has proved a great success and is already saving £1,500 a year per person engaged in it? If that scheme were introduced throughout the country, would not it save £4 billion? Could I ask him—[Interruption.]—if he will now sanction the Fakenham right-to-work pilot scheme which, if operated throughout the country, would save at least £13 billion?

The Prime Minister: As far as I could hear, my hon. Friend was welcoming the pilot schemes that were set up some time ago to help unemployed people. We are evaluating those schemes; they are showing signs of being successful. We shall examine them and decide to what extent they may be extended.

Mr. Etherington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Etherington: The Prime Minister will undoubtedly be only too well aware of the fact that only one in four crimes is being solved. Instead of following a path of retribution and vengeance, will he now consider crime prevention and the causes of crime? Instead of forever telling the House about rising crime trends in other countries, will he now do something for the citizens of this country, whom he purports to represent?

The Prime Minister: We spend a great deal of time, trouble and effort on crime prevention, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I also believe in the principle of punishment for crime when people are caught. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed the remarkable success of the Metropolitan police in dealing with burglary. Operation Bumblebee has cut burglary in recent months by around 15 per cent. That is but one illustration of a series of innovative policing efforts, which are increasingly successful, by chief constables.

Mr. Lidingiton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the protestations of Mr. Gerry Adams about his

commitment to peace should be taken seriously only when he has been able to announce that the IRA will cease its violence for good?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Neither Mr. Adams nor the Provisional IRA has given a commitment to end violence for good—a commitment which the House and everybody in the country and Ireland is waiting to hear. We should be clear about that central point. The joint declaration leaves no conceivable excuse for violence. All the words, all the prevarications and all the evasions of Sinn Fein will be utterly and completely hollow until they end violence.

Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mandelson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep anxiety among parents and local communities in coastal areas as far apart as Scotland, the north-east, the Isle of Wight and Cornwall about clusters of babies born with almost identical limb defects, in most cases without hands? Is not the best way to get to the truth of that disturbing development to set up a properly resourced, national investigation? Will he therefore ask the Secretary of State for Health to establish such a study without further delay?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly seek advice from my right hon. Friend about the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. Whether his proposition of how it should be dealt with is the right one needs further consideration. Clearly, it is a matter of concern, not only to the communities that he mentioned, but to others.

Points of Order

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: >: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise the question of the refusal last night of the authorities of the House to accept my early day motion because it included the word "shifty" with respect to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Wales? He first denied and then did not deny that he was aware of the affiliation to the Conservative party of David Rowe-Beddoe, whom he appointed as chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. I was told that I could not use the word "shifty" in that respect. That is why early-day motion 486 on page 1686 of today's Order Paper does not have the word "shifty" in it.
Your ruling yesterday, as reported in column 631 of Hansard, deemed that it was in order to use the word "shifty" as long as it did not personally attack the person concerned. However, the word used by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) did concern the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), as appears from column 605 of Hansard of social security questions yesterday. That raises the difficulty—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Would hon. Gentlemen resume their seats? An hon. Gentleman is attempting to address the Chair.

Mr. Morgan: If it was in order for the hon. Member for Bury, North to use the word "shifty" with respect to my hon. Friend in social security questions, what is shifty for the goose must be shifty for the gander.

Mr. Donald Dewar: >: I do not want to enter into the wider debate, but, on the point that was made by the hon. Member for Bury, North, I have had a word with the hon. Gentleman about the specific words that he used in connection with me. May I assure the hon. Gentleman that I bear no ill will? He would be low on my list of hon. Members who were likely to slip into indiscretion and unparliamentary language.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I am happy to withdraw the expression. I wrote to the hon. Member for Garscadden immediately after questions to give the proper construction of the remarks. The hon. Gentleman is not shifty. We have the warmest possible relationship—[Interruption.] Madam Speaker, there are times when one wishes the ground to open up. We have a good relationship, in the proper sense of the term, and I am happy to withdraw the expression and the connotation that it had, if that is of help to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is my turn, so that I may put the matter to rest. When the matter was raised yesterday, I said that I thought that the Under-Secretary of State had attributed the word "shifty" to the policies of the hon. Member for Garscadden rather than to him personally. On reading the Official Report this morning, I found that in fact the hon. Gentleman had attributed it to the hon.

Member for Garscadden personally. That was unparliamentary and unacceptable. Had I not misheard the remark at the time, I would have required the Minister to withdraw it.
The matter has now been put right. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), as I am to other hon. Members who have raised the matter. It has now been put to rest.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.

Madam Speaker: Very good.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can you inform the House whether you have yet received an intimation from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that he wishes to make a personal statement to the House on whether Westminster City council ratepayers can have the £50,000 that was conned out of the rates account returned to them?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to refer to another hon. Member in that way. If he has a substantive motion, he should table it in the normal way.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order may be of wider interest than just to me. The other day the Table Office told me that the ministerial duties of the Leader of the House did not include responsibility for the parliamentary timetable. That came as something of a surprise to me. When I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he too expressed surprise. As he said, he feels that he is quite busy. Could you elucidate the point for us all, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: There may have been some misunderstanding. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring to rules for Adjournment debates. If he is not, I do not want to have a discussion across the Floor of the House now. I shall look at precisely what he means and will give him a ruling on the matter.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Five minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was informed that the Leader of the House intends to move a privilege motion that concerns me. Is not it normal practice, when a privilege motion concerns an hon. Member, for reasonable notice to be given so that hon. Members are available on the relevant day, if they so wish? Despite an explicit request to the Government some two hours ago, no notice was given. In that case, would not it be preferable for the motion to be stood over until tomorrow's sitting?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that a motion is about to be moved; that is perfectly in order. I have looked at the precedents and this is exactly the procedure that the House always adopts on such occasions. I call the Chairman of the Committee.

Hon. Member for Banff and Buchan

Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is with the greatest regret that I have to inform the House that at its meeting this morning, the First Scottish Standing Committee, to which the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill was referred, directed me to report Mr. Alex Salrnond, the Member for Banff and Buchan, to the House because the hon. Member, not being a member of the Committee, was present in that part of the Committee Room reserved for members of the Committee, and, having been requested to do so, he declined to withdraw. As the House will know, neither a Standing Committee nor its Chairman has power to discipline Members and it is for the House to decide what action, if any, it wishes to take.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that the motion is debatable? If so, may I give notice that I would like to debate it?

Madam Speaker: The motion is now open for debate. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to speak. I call the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Salmond: The point at issue is whether the Chairman of the Committee should be given power to exclude hon. Members from the Committee. My argument is that we should not give the Chairman that power. There is a substantial case for saying that the First Scottish Standing Committee, which is considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, is improperly constituted under the Standing Orders of the House. Under Standing Order No. 86(2), the Committee of Selection of the House of Commons is charged to do two things with regard to the choice of hon. Members to serve on Standing Committees. It is charged with looking at the composition of the House as a whole, and the qualifications of the hon. Members chosen.
My submission is that the qualifications of members of that Committee are substantially in question. I refer to the qualifications of the hon. Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). The Committee has been certified by you, Madam Speaker, as being exclusively concerned with Scottish issues. How on earth can Conservative Members representing English constituencies be considered to be "qualified" to serve on the Committee when they have no constituency interest in the proceedings of the legislation? That is an important point of principle for myself and for my hon. Friends, who were willing to serve on the Committee but were not chosen.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall give way to him in a few moments.
The House might like to consider that the Committee of Selection had available to it other Conservative Members with Scottish constituencies. They were the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the Minister of State, Department of Employment—the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—the Secretary of State for Defence—and even the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) was perfectly prepared to serve but was not chosen, apparently because the Government Whips believed that he would have been an unreliable ally on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
In those circumstances, I cannot consider that it would be appropriate to give the Chairman powers over a Committee that may have been improperly constituted.

Mr. Connarty: How many Standing Committees has the hon. Gentleman volunteered to serve on or served on in the House since he came here?

Mr. Salmond: The previous occasion when there was a major Scottish Committee was in 1989. It was the Committee on Scottish self-governing schools. The hon. Gentleman may recall that again I volunteered to serve on that Committee and was excluded. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will appreciate the important principle that, if a Committee is certified by Madam Speaker as being exclusive to Scotland, it is important that Scottish Members have first option to serve on such a Committee.
I see Welsh Members in the Chamber.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On the issue of legislation dealing exclusively with Welsh matters, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a Standing Order that requires every hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency to serve on the Committee? That Standing Order has to be followed unless there is an express resolution to the contrary. When the Standing Order was put on one side for the Welsh Language Bill 1993, that action was fought vociferously by all Opposition Members. Should not the rule applying to legislation on Welsh matters also apply to Scottish legislation?

Mr. Salmond: I agree with that argument and with the Standing Order. The hon. Gentleman and I wish that other Opposition parties would view the matters relating to Scotland with the same concern as they view matters relating to Wales.
There are two effective and important precedents for such a resolution being brought to the House. The first was in 1989 during the passage of Scottish schools legislation. It was argued that the Chairman of the Committee should have powers to proceed. Two arguments were advanced in favour of that motion: first, that it would be proper for the Committee to be allowed to debate, for the debate to proceed and for each amendment to be judged on its merits; secondly, that people in Scotland had the right and ability not to use the schools opt-out legislation if they so chose. Neither of those arguments stands in the case before us.
If we consider the precedent set during the self-governing schools legislation, in Committee no substantive amendment was accepted by the Government,


although debate was allowed to proceed. I suspect that, if debate is allowed to proceed in the Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, a similar situation will arise. There would be no protection for people in Scotland if the House give the Government their way on the Committee.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the House were to accept the principle that he has adumbrated, it would inevitably mean that any Bill dealing with England alone should not have on its Standing Committee a single Scottish or Welsh Member?

Mr. Salmond: I am prepared to accept that principle. The hon. Member will note that my hon. Friends do not vote on specifically English legislation, the most recent example of which was the Bill for Sunday shops opening. I thought that it was not appropriate for Scottish Members to decide for English Members whether shops in England should open on Sundays. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would extend the same courtesy to us in Scotland. In terms of the principle—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Salmond: In a few moments.
As for the principle that he raised, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) may like to remember that in connection with the White Paper, "Taking Stock" the Tory Government argued that many more measures should be debated in the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland by Scottish Members. How on earth can that principle be upheld if English Tories are required to gerrymander Scottish local government on a Scottish Standing Committee?

Mr. Brian Wilson: >: In view of the Scottish National party's declared anti-racist stand, I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does not seek to drive irrational wedges between Scottish and English Members in the Chamber. Would he therefore care to pay tribute to the Opposition Members representing English constituencies who last night argued the case on behalf of important sections of the Scottish community with regard to the new duty on air passengers? In that lengthy debate no representative of the Scottish National party sought to speak, nor was even present from beginning to end of it. Some good may conceivably come from that debate for Scottish communities, so will the hon. Gentleman please accept that there are hon. Members representing non-Scottish constituencies who have a deep and genuine interest in Scottish affairs? Whether that extends to Conservative Members, especially on the Bill in question, is another matter, but let us not divide the House or the country on racist lines. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is being heartily cheered by the Tories. I should have hoped that on this occasion even the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is not right and proper for English Conservative Members to be parachuted on to the Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. I remember that exact point being made—presumably it was not racist then—by the leader of the Labour party in the first debate in the new Session of

Parliament. He said that it would be an outrage if English Conservative Members were put on the Committee on the Bills on local government in Wales or Scotland. If that was an outrage last October, it is still an outrage now. I would have hoped for some support from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but perhaps I should have known better.
The first precedent dates from 1972, on the Local Government (Scotland Bill). That was the first time that a similar resolution was brought before the House, and it provides an important precedent. The action was taken by several hon. Members, three Liberals and three Scottish Labour Members—the late Jo Grimond, the late John Mackintosh, the late John Robertson, the late Tom Pendry and two Members who are still with us, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). In 1972 those people thought it appropriate, on a Bill far less contentious than the Bill now before the Committee, to challenge the right of the Committee Chairman to exclude them from the Committee. There were then no English Conservative Members on the Committee, but it was still considered appropriate for those Liberal and Labour Members to challenge in what they thought was the most effective way. I wish that Labour and Liberal Members would join us today in making a similar objection.

Mr. Barry Porter: >: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be making a case why he should be on the Committee. That case may or may not have virtue, but the motion before the House relates to whether a Chairman has the right to tell a non-member of the Committee to go away. The hon. Gentleman is not arguing that point at all. May we return to where we are supposed to be?

Madam Speaker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is a very experienced Member of the House. I know that he understands what the motion is about, and I am sure he will ensure that his speech relates to it.

Mr. Salmond: Of course you, Madam Speaker, with your experience, will have noticed that I am talking about the precedents, when hon. Members came before similar Committees and similar resolutions were moved. That must be relevant to the context of the debate. In determining whether the Chairman should have powers—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am slightly concerned, because I understood the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to describe the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) as the late Member. Was I right to be surprised, or has something happened to him?

Mr. Salmond: I meant to refer to a late Labour Member whose constituency was Edinburgh, Central, I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: Tom Oswald."] Tom Oswald. I accept that correction, but it is the only correction that I intend to accept from Conservative Members.
In determining whether the Chairman should have powers, we must determine whether the Bill should proceed in the light of the arguments put forward. I have no doubt that if the motion is successful, it will enable progress to be made on the Bill. I also have no doubt that


progress on this Bill will be against the interests of the Scottish people and my constituents in Banff and Buchan. In Banff and Buchan, 92 per cent. of the people are opposed to the legislation. I cannot conceive of a situation where the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman)—he is keen on water privatisation—can have more knowledge than me about the views of my constituents. I would question whether the hon. Gentleman knows the difference between Peterhead and Portsoy.
Surely, when the Standing Orders of the House provide for exclusively Scottish legislation, hon. Members on both sides of the House should have the charity and understanding to allow exclusively Scottish matters to be debated exclusively by Scottish Members. We have a precedent in terms of the public Bill on legislation for Wales. It would be better if that precedent were followed in Scotland.
Some hon. Members will argue that the Chairman should have powers, otherwise the Government may move a guillotine. After yesterday's experience of five and a half hours' debate and the Government moving towards a guillotine, I thought that all hon. Members would realise that when the Government wish to move a guillotine, they will do so. The most effective way for Scottish Members and, indeed, Opposition Members to register their protest is to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Standing Orders to deny the Chairman of the Committee powers which are otherwise restricted to Madam Speaker to order hon. Members off a Committee.
The key matter is the rights of Scottish Members as well as those of the Committee Chairman. If Scottish Members must accept the position where we are excluded from a Scottish Standing Committee so that five English Tory Members can be parachuted on it, not because of any qualifications that they may have in terms of the Standing Orders but as voting and Lobby fodder for the Tory Whips, surely we deny our own right as hon. Members to make our case against the gerrymandering of Scottish local government and against the pursuit of putting Scottish water into the private sector.
There is a specific Scottish interest which is recognised in the Standing Orders of the House. In arguing against this motion, I am doing no more than arguing that our Standing Orders should be respected with regard to Scottish legislation. It is possible for hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill to disagree on the specific tactics and to believe that the Chairman of the Committee should have powers. However, if it is not the place of Scottish Members to object to such an obvious injustice, what is our place in the House? What alternative do we have, knowing the make-up of the Committee?

Mr. Eric Clarke: Did the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in his party ask to be a member of the Committee debating the privatisation of the coal industry? If not, why not? The Scottish coal industry should be looked after by the people of Scotland. It is just as important as anything else.

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will see that the Liberal Democrats took the minority-party place on that Committee. Given that my hon. Friends and I put our names forward for the Scottish Standing Committee which we are discussing at present, I ask the hon.

Gentleman to consider that it would be difficult for us simultaneously to nominate ourselves for another Committee.
Now that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to consider the precedents and the objections that were raised by Labour Members in 1972, I thought that he would join us in arguing against the principle and practice of parachuting English Tory Members on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman has a substantial interest in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. Midlothian is one of the key issues before the Committee. How on earth can the hon. Gentleman accept the Midlothian boundaries being determined not by him, but by hon. Members representing Blackpool, Stroud and Leeds? The complexion of the Committee looks like the English football league, as opposed to a Scottish local government Committee.
The question is whether the Committee Chairman should have powers, and I say that he should not. Otherwise, Scottish hon. Members will find that the Bill and the Committee will be gerrymandered from under their feet. There is no other way to organise opposition to the Committee.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is in his place. He has argued, I take it in all sincerity, that it is possible to persuade English Conservative hon. Members to rebel and to sacrifice their political careers to save Scottish local democracy. Is it likely that those five English Conservative Members who were chosen by the Whips will go on the Committee and rebel to save Scottish local government? I think that is highly implausible.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of parachuting hon. Members, could it be clarified whether a parachute was applied for by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)? When the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman was mentioned and it was suggested that the Minister did not want him to be a member of the Committee, there was a great shaking of the head from the Minister. Will the Minister now say what the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, because the Minister violently shook his head when the matter was raised? Could it be clarified whether the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to be a Committee member or not?

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The House is moving quite a long way from what is a narrow motion. Will the hon. Gentleman who now has the Floor relate his speech more closely to the motion which is before the House and on which the House must make a decision?

Mr. Salmond: The question raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is pertinent, and perhaps he will have a chance to ask it at a later stage.
The motion, as you rightly say, Madam Speaker, concerns the question whether the Committee Chairman should have powers. My argument is that he should not.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: As the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, perhaps I may say something? I do not think that anybody on the Committee of Selection could forget the differences and the arguments which we had about the legislation. It was debatable whether the Government should have a majority of two or one, and in the end the Government have a majority of one.
One of the hon. Gentleman's party colleagues wrote to me to suggest that all three Scottish National party Members should be on the Committee. I am afraid that I have not come across any Standing Committee that has the whole of one party's parliamentary representation serving on it.
The ratio for Committees is that the minority parties should have two Committee members. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the spokesman for the minority parties, took that point on board and there is one member from the Liberal Democrat party and one from the SNP. As a reflection of those parties' numbers in the House, I would have thought that that was fair.
The hon. Gentleman said that he kept out of English matters, but I am afraid that all Scottish hon. Members do not. On a previous occasion on which the vexed question of Sunday trading was discussed, the legislation was defeated by the votes of Scottish hon. Members who denied my constituents their rights.

Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not making that point against me, as I did not vote on that legislation.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to Standing Order 86(2), which gives the Committee its guidance from the House. He will note that the first requirement placed on the Committee concerns not its composition, but the "qualifications" of Members. That is the first requirement which the House makes in the Standing Order.
My point is a simple one, but the hon. Gentleman did not answer it in his intervention: how on earth can English Conservatives hon. Members be qualified when there are even Scottish Conservatives whom he has not selected for the Committee?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The Standing Orders say specifically that there must be at least 16 Committee members who represent Scottish constituencies, and that has happened with the Bill with which we are concerned.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman again fails to answer my question. What are the qualifications under the Standing Orders for the five English Conservative hon. Members? Incidentally, those five did not even turn up for the Second Reading debate. It is normally a prior requirement of the Committee of Selection that hon. Members should show an interest in the legislation.
Finally, Madam Speaker—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: One of the hon. Gentleman's fears seems to be the threat of the guillotine hanging over the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. May I give him some guidance? At a meeting in Edinburgh about two months ago, the parliamentary—

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Member, but we are moving a long way from the subject with talk of whether there is to be a guillotine or whether there is not. The motion is narrow and concerns whether the Chairman should have the power to order an hon. Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw from the Committee Room. It is as narrow as that.

Mr. Salmond: I hope that you will accept, Madam Speaker, that, although I may have allowed—

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Salmond: Is it a point of order?

Madam Speaker: Or a point of frustration.

Dr. Godman: I am never frustrated with you, Madam Speaker, or with your pulling me into line. I was simply attempting to illustrate something for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I hope that I have your support for doing so.

Madam Speaker: When hon. Members give illustrations, they move a long way from the motion before us. I also have to take into account the business before the House today. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will come to his conclusion, as I believe he said he would.

Mr. Salmond: I hope that you agree, Madam Speaker, that I have been sticking as closely as I can to the substance of the motion.

Madam Speaker: I agree. The hon. Gentleman has been doing so. Other Members have led him astray.

Mr. Salmond: Perhaps by giving way I have allowed myself to be diverted occasionally.
I want to come to the point of the resolution and to say why the Chairman of the Committee should not be given powers. The only effective way in which Scottish Members can protest against the Committee is by doing what I have done. It is not feasible to find another way to protect Scottish local democracy.
In support of that argument, let me cite the anonymous comments of a Labour Member in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper a week past Sunday. In reaction to the hon. Member for Hamilton, who believes that English Conservative Members on the Committee could be converted, that Labour Member said:
Everyone knows that that is not going to happen, but he"—
the hon. Member for Hamilton—
has raised expectations now and it is too late to water them down.
It is too late to water them down and it is the duty of Scottish Members to oppose the resolution and to ensure that they are seen not to accept the right of English Conservatives to gerrymander Scottish local government and to begin the privatisation of the Scottish water industry.

Mr. George Robertson: I very much regret that we are having to have this debate and to devote valuable time to the antics of the Scottish National party when local government reorganisation and what the Government are doing to the water industry should be debated by the House and the Government's policies thus exposed.
This self-indulgent stunt today by the nationalists is a spectacular own goal for them and a huge bonus for a Government who are in deep and probably terminal trouble. Once again, just as they did last year when they voted with the Tories on the European Committee of the Regions, the Scottish nationalists have come to the Government's aid.
The Government do not need much of an excuse for introducing a guillotine and cutting sensible and reasonable debate in the House on any subject, including the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill—just look at what they are going to do to the Finance Bill this afternoon. At the instigation of the Scottish nationalists, we are having to debate this motion in place of discussions and possibly a vote on value added tax on fuel in the Finance Bill Committee.
Handing the Government, on a plate, the invaluable excuse of a wholly unnecessary delay in the Committee stage today was an act of pure tactical stupidity and political suicide by the Scottish National party. It seems that there is one iron law in Scottish politics—when the Government are in a hole, send for the nationalist firemen to bring them a ladder, and here they come.
I have a sense of déjà vu on this. Last year's Maastricht debate comes back to haunt me. Just before the debate on the Committee of the Regions, I stood in front of the Mace watching three Scottish nationalists wait until the Chamber drained of other Members. They were preparing to enter the Lobby with the Conservatives to defeat a Labour amendment that would have made it obligatory for the Government—

Madam Speaker: Order. That bears no relation whatever to the motion before us. I ask the hon. Gentleman, as I have asked other Back-Bench Members, to debate the motion.

Mr. Robertson: I appreciate your advice, Madam Speaker, and assure you that last year's betrayal of the Scottish people is relevant to the motion.

Madam Speaker: Order. It is my responsibility to determine the relevance of what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the motion before the House.

Mr. Robertson: In relation to the motion, as you rightly and properly direct me, Madam Speaker, Committee Chairmen have the power to exclude Members who are not Committee members. I support the motion and shall ask my hon. Friends to support it and give my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) that power, for the reasons that I am explaining.
Last year the nationalists, who instigated the move this morning and caused this debate, conspired to support the Government on the European Committee of the Regions. They are now conspiring again to get the butchery of Scottish local government through on time.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has just said that he will go through the Conservative Lobby in a few moments. Will he recall when he did exactly the same thing in the early hours of the morning of 22 April, when he arid his Labour Front Bench colleagues saved the Prime Minister's bacon on the referendum clause in the Maastricht Bill—

Madam Speaker: Order. These interventions are becoming irrelevancies.

Mr. Robertson: Not only irrelevant, but a complete diversion from a conspiracy which the nationalists conducted with the Government last year to defeat a Labour amendment.
The Bill on which the Committee is deliberating is bad for local government, local democracy and taxpayers in Scotland—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have already called the hon. Gentleman to order. We are concerned not about the Bill but about the fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) sought to sit on a Committee without the right to do so, and about the action of the Chairman of that Committee.

Mr. Robertson: It is important for that Committee to go ahead with its proceedings so that those matters can be considered. To do so requires the Committee Chairman to have those powers. I am expIaining why those powers are necessary and why the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) are irrelevant to the case and to the powers requested by the Chairman.
The nature of this bad Bill necessitates my argument that the Committee Chairman should have those powers. It is four Bills in one: on local government; on water quangoisation; on children's hearings; and on tourism reorganisation.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall give way in a moment.
Even if the Committee Chairman gets the powers which I hope the House will give him this afternoon, and even if we make brisk and proper progress in scrutinising the Bill, the Government know that there can be no justification for curtailing the Committee stage before May this year at the earliest. They know that it would be irresponsible and outrageous to guillotine the debates on water, children's hearings and the promotion of tourism, which is precisely why Opposition parties got together to maximise opposition against the Government on the Bill.
In giving the Chairman the power that he asks for, bearing in mind the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about why he should be on the Committee, it is important to remember how we have reached this stage. There was an agreement between the parties. The Opposition parties met and, because we were all united against the Bill, it was agreed that there would be an informal degree of co-operation among the Opposition parties in the Standing Committee considering the Bill.
We agreed to meet every Monday; we agreed that we would consider joint amendments and join forces on those parts of the Bill which we all agreed were against the interests of Scotland and its people. We discussed tactics for three weeks. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) even congratulated Labour on the Government's self-inflicted delay, which was caused by the principled stand of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on the composition of the Committee.
However, last night the hon. Member for Angus, East did not make it to the joint committee; he did not come along because he was away conspiring with his leader, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, about how this year again they could do the Government's dirty work and get out of the political silage pit.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: If I understood him correctly, the hon. Gentleman said that I was away conspiring with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond); but I did not meet my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan yesterday. That statement is therefore about as accurate as the rest of the


hon. Gentleman's speech. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that such co-operation cannot exist? I have met him on those occasions and he knows that I sent my apologies to the meeting last night. I suggest that he would do better to concentrate his fire power on the Government. [Interruption.] The noise from the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends suggests that he withdraws all possible co-operation. Perhaps that was his master plan at the beginning.

Mr. Robertson: That is one of the feeblest excuses for not turning up to a meeting which was designed to maximise the discomfort of the Government but ended up with the Government having the huge comfort of a debate this afternoon that will delay the guillotine on the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill.
Scottish National party Members were not around for the meeting that we had in Committee, nor for our meeting here. Nor were they here for the debate on the imposition of tax on air fares to parts of Scotland where people are crying out about it.
On behalf of his party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that the disruption this morning was caused because he wants to serve on the Committee. The last time the hon. Gentleman served on a Scottish Standing Committee was on 10 November 1987. It was on the Scottish Development Agency Bill, it lasted for one morning session, and the hon. Gentleman did not raise a point of order about the fact that there was an English majority on that Committee.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that it is because he wants to delay the Committee stage of the Bill, but the hon. Member for Angus, East did not even know that the motion to report to the House was actually debatable and let it go. He was the only person in the Committee who voted at 10.46 not to adjourn the Committee. Presumably, he wanted to make progress on the Bill and keep it going for even longer.

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that it is not right and proper to have English Members of Parliament parachuted on to the Committee, but the hon. Member for Angus, East serves on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which has an inbuilt English Tory majority to make up the numbers.
When the House considered the poll tax Bill, there was no disruption by the then leader of the Scottish National party in Parliament and that point was not raised.
The nationalists say, as does the hon. Gentleman, that this is a brand new tactic, brilliant in its execution, which will not provoke an early guillotine, but it is a carbon copy of the self-indulgent opportunistic stunt that he and his hon. Friends pulled on 14 March 1989 on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill. They lost a day's consideration in Committee and then the Government introduced a guillotine on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
They say—not here, but outside the House—that they have more procedural tricks to play which are just as brilliant. Frankly, that is good news for the Government but bad news for Scottish local government and Scottish water.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I am trying to make progress, Madam Speaker, but the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan keeps jumping up and down.

Mr. Salmond: Before the hon. Gentleman votes with the Conservatives, will he tell the House what progress he is making—according to his forecasts—in persuading English Conservatives to vote with him in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill?

Mr. Robertson: On the night when the hon. Gentleman and his pals voted with the Tory Government, about 26 Tories voted with the Labour party to impose on the Government an obligation to have elected councillors on the Committee of the Regions. I am not making any prophecies as to whether the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) or others will see the benefits of the arguments in the Committee. That is a matter for the Committee. I make one prediction: as the SNP has not ended its co-operation with the Government, and as it has been helpful in the past, by gosh it is almost bound to be helpful in future.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree wholeheartedly that this is a Parliament for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which includes Scotland, and therefore that my English colleagues and I have a perfect right to be on the Committee?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was helpful during the Maastricht ratification process. Of course this is the United Kingdom Parliament. He has a right to be on the Committee. Nobody questions the right of English Tory Members who are on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, least of all the hon. Member for Angus, East who serves on it with them.
The motion before us is to give the Committee Chairman the power to exclude from its proceedings those who wish to indulge in this morning's stunt, to prevent other people from coming along and giving the Government an excuse or some vestige of respectability for the argument for an early guillotine. The nationalists will say and do anything to excuse their own stupidity. Just as they were rumbled and exposed throughout Scotland last year when they voted with the Tories on Maastricht, they will be exposed again this year. This morning's stunt was counter-productive and designed to get cheap publicity for the Scottish National party, which has always seemed to put its self-indulgence and tactical ineptitude before the real interests of the Scottish people.
The Scottish people want us to delay this bad Bill if we can, to get the verdict on it in the regional elections. They want us to destroy it if possible. That is the principal objective of the Labour party. They want us to change and improve it just in case it goes through on the ludicrously short timetable that the Government have set for it. Kindergarten parliamentary games will simply put advantage in the hands of the Government and we will have nothing to do with them. The nationalists want to divide the Opposition and, it would appear, to make life easy for the Government, as they constantly seem to want and desire. In that case, let them do it alone. But let them be conscious that they will bear the proper contempt of the people of Scotland if they do so. Therefore, I call on my hon. Friends to vote for the motion this afternoon.

Mr. Bill Walker: I believe that the House should support the motion. Everyone knows that, without the powers to remove disruptive Members, the Speaker would not be able to conduct business effectively within the Chamber. That is equally true of the Scottish Standing Committee. If it has those who are determined to cause trouble—we saw evidence of it this morning—the Chairman must have powers so that the Committee can get on with the important business of debating the issues before it. That is the same with the House. We should be getting on with today's business as well.

Mr. John McAllion: I have listened carefully to the words of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He said that he took a stand on the matter of principle that English Members in this Parliament should not be allowed to have any role in legislation that relates exclusively to Scotland. He then completely contradicted his principled stand by appealing to Members representing English constituencies, on both sides of the House, to join him in intervening in matters which relate exclusively to the people of Scotland, by denying the Chairman of the Committee the power to exclude Members who are in breach of Standing Orders. He really cannot have it both ways: he cannot tell English Members to stay away from Scottish debates, and then appeal to them to intervene directly in Scottish business to support the arguments that he tried to advance to the Welsh Committee.
I am prepared to accept the principle that hon. Members should be able to halt the proceedings of the House to defend a principle or to highlight an injustice; indeed, when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) did precisely that during debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill back in 1987, I supported him. There is, however, a limit to the number of times that such action can be repeated: eventually, other hon. Members will become sick of the constant halting of business, and the hon. Member responsible will begin to discredit hiss own principled position.
That is not just my view; it is the view of Scottish National party Members themselves. Let us consider the way in which exclusively Scottish business has been dealt with over the years. The Standing Committee considering what became the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, for instance, consisted of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and four English Members representing English constituencies—and not a word of objection came from any Scottish National party Member.
It is a contradiction in terms. It seems that English Members cannot intervene in discussion of this Bill, although Scottish National party members did not object to such action on previous occasions. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan did not object to the involvement of English Members in the passage of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1987; the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) considered the Transport (Scotland) Bill—enacted in 1989—along with eight English Members, and uttered not a word of objection.

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend and I both served in Comittee on the Bill to privatise the railways: I hope that

we did a reasonable job in defending Scottish interests, along with other interests throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend may recall that a place on that Committee —which was debating a matter of crucial importance to Scotland—was offered to the Scottish National party. The party turned down the offer, with the result that another place was filled by Labour.

Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What is the essential difference between delaying a Bill and the Labour party's current policy of so-called non-cooperation?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman must be patient; I shall deal with that point shortly.
It should be understood that the Scottish National party has a long tradition of refusing to serve on Committees. My predecessor as Member for Dundee, East—then chairman of the Scottish National party—turned down the chance to serve on the Scottish Select Committee; and I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has served on only one Committee in the six or seven years that he has been in the House.
Recently, the hon. Member for Angus, East was not even present for a vital vote in the Scottish Select Committee, in connection with the investigation of the Peterkin affair. Conservative Members, however, turned up to vote. I cannot use the word "hypocrisy", because it is not parliamentary; but a large dose of something very like hypocrisy is now emanating from the Scottish National party Bench.
When the House last debated a motion of this kind, it concerned the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, enacted in 1989. Three Scottish National party members were ejected, and the House had to decide whether to give the Chairman power to exclude them.
At the time, the hon. Member for Angus, East expIained why he thought that the Chairman should not be given that power, arguing that it was pointless to table amendments in Scottish Standing Committees, because the Government never accepted them—that the present Government simply could not be trusted. That was in 1989—a couple of years before certain hon. Members tried to make a deal with the Government by agreeing to support their opposition to a Labour amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: I shall give way in a minute. I have not yet finished with the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has learnt his lesson. He argues that we should oppose this motion as there is no point in Scottish Members tabling amendments to Scottish Bills; yet, in the case of this piece of legislation, there are amendments standing in his name, and no doubt he will argue that they should be supported in Committee.
If there is no point in tabling amendments, why has the hon. Gentleman done exactly that? I have spoken to members of a delegation from Scotland who have had discussions with the hon. Member for Angus, East. Their understanding is that the hon. Gentleman has given them an undertaking that he will support an amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who is a Tory.

Madam Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but it is not in order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look at the terms of the motion before us, I will hand it to him. I hope that he will address his remarks to it.

Mr. McAllion: I am simply trying to deal with arguments that have been put to me by hon. Members who say that the motion should be opposed.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Angus, East, as he seems to be getting rather agitated.

Mr. Welsh: What is the hon. Gentleman's standing in the Labour party? When he quoted me, he should have quoted also his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who pointed out that the Government simply did not accept amendments. I throw the matter back to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson): which amendments to this Bill do they expect to be accepted? Which English Tories on the Committee does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to convince about water boards or any other matter except boundaries? Which amendments, and which Tories?

Madam Speaker: Order. I now insist that the motion be debated correctly. Otherwise, I shall have to take steps in the matter.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has argued that, as a matter of principle, we should oppose this motion. I am arguing that no principle is involved. Where principle is involved, hon. Members must be consistent in its defence. In this case, the Scottish National party has been wholly inconsistent. It is important that hon. Members understand this fact before responding to the appeal of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

Mr. Connarty: If we were not to give the Chair these powers, we could find ourselves having to deal with such indiscipline in the future. That possible difficulty is in addition to the loss of time today for debate on the Finance Bill. We ought not to lose very important time for discussion of such matters as value added tax on fuel and the Child Support Agency because of the behaviour of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point.
The basic argument of the Scottish National party is that hon. Members who are serious about delaying the implementation of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ought to continue to disrupt the proceedings. SNP Members believe that they can convince a majority of hon. Members. In essence, that would mean convincing Tories representing English constituencies that they should support moves to defeat the Government. That is clearly impractical: it simply will not happen.
The Bill contains 169 clauses and 14 schedules. It is two and a half times as big as any other Bill relating exclusively to Scotland. The Standing Committee spent 13 days on legislation dealing with housing in Scotland. The number of sittings was 24, and the number of hours spent was between 85 and 86. If the same principles were applied to this legislation, we could look forward to thirty-two and a half days in Committee, 60 sittings and more than 200 hours' debate. During that debate, we could expose the Government for what they are trying to do in Scotland, and seek to have some amendments accepted.
It must be remembered that the Government have a Committee majority of only one. They do not want to spend 200 hours knowing that a Division could be called at any moment. They would have to ensure that every Member was present. They are desperate for a guillotine, not only to curtail debate, shorten the timetable and enable them to hit their target of April 1995 for shadow elections to the new councils; but also to ensure that they will know when Divisions will occur, so that they can have their 12 Members present. They are desperate for an excuse for a guillotine on this Bill.
What has the SNP done? It has given the Government their excuse.

Dr. Godman: Two months ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), said in Edinburgh that this Bill would not be guillotined in Committee.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but that was before the SNP handed the hon. Member for Eastwood an excuse on a plate.
The Government will now argue: "We cannot possibly deal with the Bill in Committee, because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his friends, and anyone who supports them in the Division, are out to wreck the Bill. We therefore need a guillotine and extended powers for the Chair."
It is important that people realise that this did not suddenly happen this morning: it has been months in planning. It was trailed during the Christmas recess, when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan leaked information about what the SNP intended to do to Scottish Sunday newspapers. It was trailed in a press release issued yesterday by the hon. Member for Angus, East.
The SNP is in a desperate political situation. With the Government at an all-time low in Scotland, it cannot make any headway, because the Labour party has seen it off. The SNP's true purpose in opposing the motion is not to get at the Tory Government but to get at the major opposition to the Tory Government in Scotland—the Labour party. It seeks to fool the Scottish people that it is fighting the Bill and we are not, when the opposite is the truth.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had been cheered to the echo by Tory Members. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was cheered to the echo by Scottish Office Ministers and Conservative members of the Committee this morning.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asks: what is the alternative? It is very clear—to get rid of the Tory Government and to establish a Scottish Parliament, and the way to do that is to elect a Labour Government.

Mr. Greg Knight: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 41.

Division No. 95]
[4.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashton, Joe


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack


Allen, Graham
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)






Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Barnes, Harry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bates, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Godsiff, Roger


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gunnell, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hanson, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hoey, Kate


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hutton, John


Day, Stephen
Illsley, Eric


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, Sir James


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan





Legg, Barry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luff, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


MacKay, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McNamara, Kevin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, Sir David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mans, Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Milligan, Stephen
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pickles, Eric
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sackville, Tom



Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Tim Wood.


Sheerman, Barry





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, Bob


Alton, David
Cummings, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dafis, Cynog


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bennett, Andrew F.
Flynn, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)






Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tyler, Paul


Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Andrew


Lynne, Ms Liz
Wigley, Dafydd


Maclennan, Robert
Wise, Audrey


Maddock, Mrs Diana



Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. James Wallace and


Rendel, David
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 491, Noes 10.

Division No. 96]
[4.43 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainger, Nick
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Budgen, Nicholas


Allen, Graham
Burns, Simon


Alton, David
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Peter


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Byers, Stephen


Armstrong, Hilary
Caborn, Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Callaghan, Jim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Aspinwall, Jack
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atkins, Robert
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cann, Jamie


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Austin-Walker, John
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barnes, Harry
Churchill, Mr


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Bates, Michael
Clappison, James


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Battle, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bell, Stuart
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Coe, Sebastian


Bendall, Vivian
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F.
Colvin, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Congdon, David


Berry, Dr. Roger
Connarty, Michael


Betts, Clive
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blair, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Blunkett, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cousins, Jim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cox, Tom


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Cryer, Bob


Boyes, Roland
Cummings, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Brandreth, Gyles
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Brazier, Julian
Dalyell, Tam


Bright, Graham
Darling, Alistair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davidson, Ian





Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Day, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Denham, John
Hague, William


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hain, Peter


Devlin, Tim
Hall, Mike


Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Dicks, Terry
Hampson, Dr Keith


Dixon, Don
Hanley, Jeremy


Dobson, Frank
Hannam, Sir John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Hanson, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Hardy, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Dover, Den
Harman, Ms Harriet


Dowd, Jim
Harris, David


Duncan, Alan
Haselhurst, Alan


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Hawkins, Nick


Dunn, Bob
Hawksley, Warren


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Hayes, Jerry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Heald, Oliver


Durant, Sir Anthony
Henderson, Doug


Eagle, Ms Angela
Hendry, Charles


Eastham, Ken
Hicks, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Elletson, Harold
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Enright, Derek
Hinchliffe, David


Etherington, Bill
Hoey, Kate


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Hood, Jimmy


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Horam, John


Evennett, David
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Faber, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Fishburn, Dudley
Hoyle, Doug


Fisher, Mark
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Flynn, Paul
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Forman, Nigel
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Forth, Eric
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Hunter, Andrew


Foulkes, George
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Hutton, John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Illsley, Eric


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Ingram, Adam


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Jack, Michael


French, Douglas
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Fry, Sir Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Fyfe, Maria
Jamieson, David


Galbraith, Sam
Janner, Greville


Gale, Roger
Jenkin, Bernard


Gallie, Phil
Jessel, Toby


Galloway, George
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Gardiner, Sir George
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Gerrard, Neil
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Gill, Christopher
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Gillan, Cheryl
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Godsiff, Roger
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Gordon, Mildred
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Key, Robert


Gorst, John
Khabra, Piara S.


Gould, Bryan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Graham, Thomas
Kilfoyle, Peter


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Kirkwood, Archy






Knapman, Roger
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Morley, Elliot


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Moss, Malcolm


Knox, Sir David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Mudie, George


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Nelson, Anthony


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Neubert, Sir Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Nicholls, Patrick


Legg, Barry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Norris, Steve


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lewis, Terry
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Lidington, David
O'Hara, Edward


Lightbown, David
Olner, William


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
O'Neill, Martin


Litherland, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Ottaway, Richard


Lord, Michael
Page, Richard


Loyden, Eddie
Paice, James


Luff, Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Patten, Rt Hon John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Pawsey, James


McAllion, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


McAvoy, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Macdonald, Calum
Pickles, Eric


McFall, John
Pickthall, Colin


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Pike, Peter L.


MacKay, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Maclean, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


McLeish, Henry
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Maclennan, Robert
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


McMaster, Gordon
Primarolo, Dawn


McNamara, Kevin
Radice, Giles


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Rathbone, Tim


Madel, Sir David
Raynsford, Nick


Mahon, Alice
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Reid, Dr John


Major, Rt Hon John
Rendel, David


Mans, Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Marek, Dr John
Richards, Rod


Marland, Paul
Riddick, Graham


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Marshall, John (Handon S)
Robathan, Andrew


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Martlew, Eric
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Mates, Michael
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Maxton, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Meale, Alan
Rogers, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Rooker, Jeff


Michael, Alun
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Milburn, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Miller, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


Milligan, Stephen
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Mills, Iain
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sackville, Tom


Moate, Sir Roger
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Monro, Sir Hector
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sedgemore, Brian





Shaw, David (Dover)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sheerman, Barry
Thurnham, Peter


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tipping, Paddy


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Simpson, Alan
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Turner, Dennis


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Viggers, Peter


Snape, Peter
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Soames, Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Soley, Clive
Wallace, James


Spearing, Nigel
Waller, Gary


Speed, Sir Keith
Walley, Joan


Spellar, John
Ward, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waterson, Nigel


Spink, Dr Robert
Watson, Mike


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Whitney, Ray


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wicks, Malcolm


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Steinberg, Gerry
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stephen, Michael
Willetts, David


Stern, Michael
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Stewart, Allan
Wilshire, David


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Jack
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Worthington, Tony


Sykes, John
Wray, Jimmy


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. Timothy Wood.




NOES


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Salmond, Alex


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Llwyd, Elfyn



Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Cynog Dafis.

Question accordingly agreed to

Resolved,
That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room;and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.

Regulation of Political Funding

Mr. John Spellar: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the system of funding of political parties; and for connected purposes.
I introduced a similar Bill in the previous Session. Events since then have made such a Bill even more relevant, especially in view of the excellent work being undertaken by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Much of the material on the subject has been brought together in Martin Linton's recent well-publicised pamphlet for the Institute for Public Policy Research, although I must stress that the Bill is not concerned with the state funding of political parties.
The Bill has three main aims. The first is to prohibit donations by foreign nationals who are not normally resident in this country, and by overseas companies and overseas Governments. The second is to ensure the recording and publication of donations above a certain limit; I suggest about £1,000, but I am not too tight on that. The third is to require political parties to publish income and expenditure accounts, in the way in which companies and trade unions do.
Those objectives should commend themselves beyond the Opposition Benches. We know that many Conservatives are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of accounts and accountability in their own party. Even the Prime Minister does not seem to be fully informed. When I asked him at Question Time on 19 October about Tory party finances, he said:
There are a great many secret sources and they are all cheese and wine parties up and down the country."— [Official Report, 19 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 144.]
There was £440,000 from Asil Nadir and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, from Greek shipowner John Latsis, Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka Shing and fugitive from justice and ex-Nissan boss Octav Botnar. That is a lot of big cheeses, let alone glasses of wine.
Perhaps the Prime Minister thinks that the dinners that he has been persuaded to put on again at No. 10 are just a few chums popping by for a snack. Perhaps his party officers do not tell him how the bite is put on subsequently for party funds. The Bill would help him to know how his party is funded, even if it would not help him to know other matters about his party. After all, his attitude is that we should not ask him because he is only the Prime Minister.
The Bill would also help the Tory party to dispel unjustified accusations about its funding. Tories have been very upset recently by the allegations by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about Saudi funding. Open disclosure would clear that matter up; my proposed ban on foreign funding would have saved them from the embarrassment in the first place. We would not have to concern ourselves with the rumours which were circulating long before the current story on the Malaysian dam that there were payments into Tory party slush funds from Malaysian arms deals. Everything would be there in the open. We would not have to worry about whether funding had come from right-wing foundations in the United States or from the Government of Brunei. Is not it ridiculous that a major political party in this country should be dependent on money from people who cannot even vote in our elections? That is why the United States, Canada and most European countries ban foreign donations; we should follow their example.
At one of the famous Downing street dinners, almost half those present benefited from foreign domicile tax status, a nice little loophole that costs ordinary taxpayers £1 billion a year. It makes the United Kingdom one of only four western European countries—I say "countries" in inverted commas because the others are the Channel Islands, Luxembourg and Switzerland—which has that status. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), as Financial Secretary, initiated a review of that loophole. The initiative was stopped by the then Chanceller of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister. I am sure that the recipients were grateful. We would like to know how grateful. How many pounds' worth of gratitude did they express?
For domestic donors, there is the honours system. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) rather pompously claims that honours cannot be sold because of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. However, some unkind person has noticed a rather strong —how can I put it delicately?—statistical correlation between companies' donations to the Tory party and honours to their chairmen and managing directors. If we knew about individual donations, we might be able to make an even better match.
The Tory party might say that we are being unfair: we should let the public know and we should let them draw their own conclusions. It is not only Opposition Members, but the public and Tory party members, who are concerned. I do not refer only to the Charter Group, which has been most prominent in the campaign for proper accounts. After all, the House passed a resolution in 1949 saying that political parties should have proper accounts. Perhaps it is time that we put that into practice. I refer also to individual Tory party members across the country. Membership of the Tory party is collapsing.
When, for example, it was revealed that party funds had been used to pay the legal expenses of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames in his attempts to evict an undesirable tenant, the vice-chairman of the Tory party estimated that the party had lost £500,000 in donations. Why should ordinary Tory party members fund such excesses? Why should they bother even with wine and cheese parties when they believe, probably rightly, that the super rich at home and abroad will bail the party out? That is why the Tories have become increasingly dependent on donations to central party funds—£7·5 million in 1989, £15·8 million in 1991 and a whopping £20·7 million in 1992.
It is also a matter of public concern that the Tories seem to be becoming increasingly cavalier about the few rules that we have. While attention has rightly been focused on the auditor's report on designated sales in Westminster, we should not forget the question marks over the financing of the Tory campaign in Westminster and the money that may have to be paid back on the instructions of the Charity Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is only too well aware of a similar undercover channelling of money to her opponent's campaign.
I remember the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 being debated because I was a member of the Committee. Conservative Members called for more detailed accounts. In their own affairs, however, it is clear that they claim the right to silence. In the recent debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, Tory spokesmen speaking on the so-called "right to silence" have been fond of the slogan: "Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear."


That is why they so strongly oppose these changes and that is why they claim the right to silence. They have a lot to hide.
I hope that the Bill and the Select Committee report will help to lift the corner slightly on the dark, sleazy world of Tory party finance and expose it to some scrutiny and sunlight. Sunlight, in the words of the American Supreme Court of Justice, is, in a democracy, the best disinfectant. We need to clean up political funding in this country; we need the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Spellar, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Andrew Macki:nlay, Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Chris Mullin.

REGULATION OF POLITICAL FUNDING

Mr. John Spellar accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the system of funding of political parties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Orders of the Day — Committee of the Whole House

1.—(1) The Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(2) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) shall not apply.

(3) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

Orders of the Day — Standing Committee

2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 29th March.

(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 29th March may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 30th March.

Orders of the Day — Report and Third Reading

3.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.

(2) On the first of those days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall, notwithstanding subparagraph (a) of that paragraph, apply to the proceedings on the Bill for only one hour after Ten o'clock.

(3) The proceedings on Third Reading may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the proceedings on consideration, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on ways and means resolutions.

Orders of the Day — Business Committee

4.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 14th April.

(3) Any Resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 80, whether before or after 14th April and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.

(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Orders of the Day — Procedure in Standing Committee

5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the


Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Orders of the Day — Report of proceedings in Committee

6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.

Orders of the Day — Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Extra time

8.—(1) On the first of the allotted days mentioned in paragraph 3, any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period of one hour mentioned in paragraph 3(2).

(2) If that allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to the period of one hour.

Orders of the Day — Private business

9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Orders of the Day — Procedure at time for conclusion of proceedings

10. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause of Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

11.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 10 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20

(Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day — Supplemental orders

12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Saving

13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Orders of the Day — Recommittal

14.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Orders of the Day — Interpretation

15. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
the Bill" means the Finance Bill;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

I make no apology for moving the motion, although I do so with regret. The plain fact, as anyone who followed our proceedings yesterday would acknowledge, is that the tactics that were then pursued made the motion inevitable. Let me put my position in words that would be much


approved of and appreciated by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), if he were able to be in his place:
I should have preferred that we completed our proceedings on the Finance Bill with no need for a timetable motion. I wish that the two sides of the House could have agreed on sensible arrangements for allocating what is by any standard a generous amount of time for the remaining stages of the Bill. That would have allowed us to complete our consideration of it in a sensible manner. Unfortunately, such an agreement proved to be unobtainable. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary sought such an understanding last week in discussion … but could not obtain it."—[Official Report, 4 March 1975; Vol. 887, c. 1288.]

My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee would have appreciated those remarks because he was present when they were uttered. That was almost 20 years ago when the then Mr. Edward Short moved the guillotine motion on the Finance Bill of 1975. The only words that I have left out are the reference to the person with whom the then Chief Secretary had had discussions —my right hon. and learned Friend who is now Lord Howe. With the exception of that reference, if I had substituted the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the same words would apply exactly to the position that we have today.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before we continue, I should make it clear that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House admit, that on that occasion when the Finance Bill was guillotined, there had already been 160 hours of debate in Committee'? We have had precisely five hours in Committee on this Bill, which is the longest Finance Bill in history, containing 244 clauses and 24 schedules. We were only on the first clause.

Mr. Newton: First, the position then was not one in which the Opposition were declining co-operation of any kind on any matter. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said on Second Reading, against the background of obvious obstruction and delay that we saw yesterday, the case for an early guillotine is strengthened to ensure that this important and lengthy Bill is properly discussed.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House accept that the motion is an affront to the British people? Does not he recognise that today, and throughout the Bill's passage, we are supposed to debate the largest tax hike in British history, but the Government are ramming the legislation through the House with a guillotine motion? That is an affront. How can he possibly come to House with the guillotine measure today?

Mr. Newton: I do not accept that it is an affront and I do not think that most hon. Members on either side of the House believe that it is. If the hon. Gentleman believes it, I will quote him the words of hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), who I believe specially assists the Leader of the Opposition. In a debate a couple of years ago, the hon. Lady said that she agreed that
our rights"—
those of the Opposition—
are critical for democracy and civil rights. However, sitting all the hours available is not the most effective way in which to

defend those rights. If the House cannot organise itself effectively, what right do we have to pretend that we can organise the rest of the country?"—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 110.]
That is the problem that I am addressing.

Mr. George Foulkes: We can consider the matter rather more coolly this afternoon than we could at 10.30 last night. The Leader of the House talks about obvious obstruction and delay. I sat through some of the debate yesterday afternoon and evening. We were talking about a totally new tax that has not been introduced before and that is a major innovation by the Government. I heard speeches that were not extensive, for example, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who has a great constituency interest in the proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who is here today, spoke for only 10 minutes and his constituency contains Glasgow airport. It was a genuine debate conducted by hon. Members with constituency concerns. Some of my hon. Friends did not even have the opportunity to voice their views on a major new tax. That is not obstruction; it is democracy and debate, which is what we are not getting from the Government.

Mr. Newton: I shall have one or two comments to make about yesterday's debate later.
Let me make it clear, as I did on the last occasion when such a motion proved necessary on a Bill in this Session, that we have not arrived at this position for any want of effort by my right hon. and hon. Friends to achieve agreement on how the Bill should proceed sensibly. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary wrote to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) before Second Reading to suggest arrangements that were very much in line with the conventions of recent years. Those would have provided for two full days in Committee of the whole House to discuss clauses that the Opposition seemed likely to think were appropriate for that forum rather than for a Standing Committee.
The reply that my right hon. Friend received was swift, short and sharp—I can readily record it in full. The letter
stated:
Dear Michael
Thank you for your letter of 20th January.
As you rightly say the Opposition is not willing to enter into informal discussions this year.
I have passed a copy of your letter to the Chief Whip.
Despite that rebuff, we continued to do everything that we could to act in a reasonable way. We did not seek to use the Opposition's attitude as a pretext for guillotining the Bill at once or for taking all of it in Committee, as we could have sought to do. We took account of the views of those who were prepared to discuss the proposals—the Liberal Democrats—in deciding which clauses to commit to the days on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend wrote once again to the hon. Lady to keep her informed of our proposal.
Even then our efforts did not cease; on the contrary, further contacts were made, which I have no reason to doubt were conducted in good faith. They led us to believe that, in practice, the business could be handled in a sensible way and in line with precedent and reasonable expectation, with the debate on clause 28 running until about 7 pm and debate on clause 46 running until about 10 pm.
My right hon. and hon. Friends could not have done more to avoid the need for the motion. Unhappily, the only


return that they had for their endeavours was what we saw yesterday. Anyone looking into the Chamber would have realised that yesterday's events were a transparent exercise in artificially extending debate. It became clear that there was no serious prospect of this important Bill being discussed in the way that most hon. Members would like and those outside the House are entitled to expect.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Has the Leader of the House looked at today's Hansard and read the comments and statements made by Opposition Members, which I felt were serious? Five million passengers come into Glasgow airport. We are working to increase that number to 8 million. More than £400 million will be spent locally to make the place vibrant once again after the 14 years of Tory Government. It is important that a new tax receives a full hearing. My constituents demand it. The 15,000 people who work in Glasgow airport—and I am sure the hundreds of thousands who work at other airports—wish to see a full debate in Parliament. Yesterday's three hours of debate were not a lot to offer those folk.

Mr. Newton: There is no doubt that we fully accept that the tax proposal deserved proper debate. It could and should have had proper debate in the time that we had expected to it to take. I understand that, when the Front Bench team had finished their speeches at about 5.30 pm, there were only four Labour Back Benchers in the House and there was widespread doubt as to whether the debate could be kept going until 7 pm. Of those hon. Members who spoke later, many—four, I believe—were among those who had not been present at the outset of the Back Bench debate. Several of them made speeches ranging from lengths of half an hour to, at the extreme, 50 minutes. I am not suggesting that it was unreasonable for hon. Members to make speeches. I am saying that, as a matter of judgment—having been here for part of the time myself, having followed the debate on the screens, and having talked to some of my hon. Friends who were in the Chamber—I know that there could be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that the debate was deliberately spun out and delayed.

Mr. Eric Illsley: rose—

Mr. Calum Macdonald: rose—

Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who spoke for 50 minutes yesterday.

Mr. Macdonald: I apologised to Madam Speaker in advance for not being able to be present for the beginning of yesterday's debate. I was coming down from my constituency, which the Leader of the House may realise is quite some distance from here. In my speech, I tried to elicit an explanation of why, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor suggested that the Scottish islands would be exempt when detailed scrutiny of the Budget showed that there was no such exemption. We are still waiting for an answer.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair argument about his constituency interest, but as my right hon. and hon. Friends have just said, he has just managed

in less than a minute to make the point that took him 50 minutes last night. That tells us something about what was going on.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Newton: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and then to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). Then I must make some progress.

Mr. Illsley: Yesterday the Leader of the House referred to an agreement having been reached, and just now he referred to contacts and the possibility of agreement on the progress of the Bill. As the Opposition Treasury Whip, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that as far as I am concerned there was no contact and no agreement whatever about the handling of the debate last night. There had been no contact with the Whips Office and no agreement.

Mr. Newton: That emerged clearly from the course of events yesterday. Nevertheless, what I have been told by my hon. Friends was told to me in good faith and I have no doubt that such contacts as took place took place in good faith. I am simply stating our perspective on those matters.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite common for the Government to timetable business to take place after 10 o'clock at night and also common for hon. Members on both sides of the House to speak for 50 minutes or more? Why does he single out yesterday evening and say that there was something unusual about it? I spoke for only 10 minutes, so I take it that that would be accepted as proof that I was not engaged in any plot. I have no particular constituency interest in the tax, but my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has a very special constituency interest and it is perfectly understandable that he should have spoken for 50 minutes, and also that he could not be present for the beginning of the debate. Why have the Government overreacted in this way? We know what the answer is, but could we have an explanation from the Government?

Mr. Newton: I have already acknowledged the constituency interest of the hon. Member for Western Isles. I also said that he could have made his point a great deal more crisply—as indeed he has just demonstrated.
In response to the other objections, I make the point that while I have been Leader of the House, among the main pressures exerted on me by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—not, I accept, by all hon. Members —have been requests that I take steps to enable the House more regularly to finish its business at 10 o'clock rather than continuing late into the night.
The motion therefore provides for the orderly completion of discussion of the clauses committed to the whole House by 10 o'clock tonight. That fulfils our commitment to provide two full days on the Floor of the House. Of course, the less time that is taken on the motion, the more time there will be for discussion of the clauses themselves.
The motion goes on to provide for proceedings in the Standing Committee to be concluded by 29 March—the Tuesday before Easter, eight weeks from today—and then to provide for two days, which would of course be after Easter, for Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Michael Stern: In view of the obvious obstruction that we saw yesterday in the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "What obstruction?"]—and the declared tactics of the Opposition to continue it, will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that if that obstruction continues in Committee he will ingoduce a further motion to ensure adequate debate of all clauses in Committee?

Mr. Newton: The motion provides for the establishment of a Business Sub-Committee to do precisely that in Committee, and in due course for a Business Committee when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.
For both Committee and remaining stages, our proposals are entirely consistent with what has been achieved by other means when the affairs of the House have been conducted more normally and with giving a full and proper opportunity for discussion of the Bill. To underline that fact, I might add that of the past six normal Finance Bills—I exclude the Bill that was debated in the rather special circumstances immediately before the 1992 election—the time taken in Standing Committee was respectively 14 days, 13, days, 11 days, nine days, seven days and 10 clays.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Bill is twice as long.

Mr. Newton: If the motion were accepted, and the Standing Committee were to sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays from now to the finishing date that I have set —[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am somewhat tired of repeated sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Newton: The Committee would sit for 16 days, which would be the most days spent on any Finance Bill during that period.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Newton: May I finish this point?
That would provide for about 100 hours to be spent considering the Bill, which compares with 70 hours last year. The provision for remaining stages is precisely the same as that for all six Finance Bills that I have mentioned.

Mr. Illsley: I understood the Leader of the House to say that the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill last year sat for 10 days. I checked with the Library yesterday and the Finance Bill 1993 had three days on the Floor of the House and 17 sittings in Standing Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that? Does he mean 10 sittings, or what? Last year there were 17 sittings-17 separate days in Committee.

Mr. Newton: The Bill certainly had three days on the Floor of the House, but my information is that it had 10 days in Standing Committee—of course, the number of sittings could embrace more than one sitting in a day. The figure of 10 days for last year compares with 16 days this year, under the motion before the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Newton: I give way to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House tell us which of the previous Finance Bills included totally new taxation, such as the airline tax, the tax on insurance and all the other taxes? This year's Finance Bill is revolutionary in many ways, quite different from the others that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Newton: There were substantial proposals in all those Bills. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument stands up.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and then I shall try to bring my speech to an end.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Bill is twice the normal size? It contains 244 clauses, as against—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends tell me that it is 40 per cent. longer. Surely that requires additional time for hon. Members to debate the Bill.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman maintains that yesterday a small number of Members gave long speeches. That is the basis on which he justifies the guillotine motion —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what he told us.

Mr. Foulkes: He said it was a deliberate filibuster.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does he think that four or five long speeches should prevent another 635 Members of Parliament from reasonably debating a Bill in the House of Commons? Why should that small number dictate to others in the House whether the Bill is properly debated?

Mr. Newton: First, let me make it clear that I rest my case on the combination of factors on which I touched in my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Justifiably, the nature and length of some of the speeches yesterday, and the fact that some were made by hon. Members who, so far as I am aware, had not even attended the beginning of the debate, have been taken into account.
As for the length of the Bill, my information is that this year's Bill is 417 pages long and last year's was 296. My Treasury colleagues, whose instant maths is obviously better than mine, tell me that this year's Bill is 40 per cent. longer. That sounds about right—and there will be 50 per cent. more time in Standing Committee.
As I said at the outset, I moved the motion with regret but without apology. In bringing my remarks to an end, I make a point that is often overlooked on such occasions, but which I believe is important. I accept unequivocally that it is right in arranging the business of the House to have due regard to the rights of the Opposition. Indeed, that is clearly reflected in the efforts that we made to achieve an understanding and in the way in which, even in the absence of any understanding, we have sought to follow precedent in the timetable proposed. However, I do not accept the proposition that sometimes seems implicit in the rhetoric deployed by the Opposition, which is that the rights of the Opposition are the same as the rights of Back Benchers or the rights of the House as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made the point tellingly in his intervention last night, when he gave his eye-witness account of yesterday's proceedings and clearly said that he felt that his rights, as a Back Bencher wishing to take part in the debate on clause 46, had been infringed. In his judgment, what occurred was an abuse of the House.
As Leader of the House, I have a responsibility to Back Benchers on both sides of the House, not merely to the Opposition Front Bench. Above all, I have a responsibility to the House as a whole, to ensure that our business can be conducted in an orderly and sensible way, to fulfil the duty that we all share to those outside the House who will be affected by the measures that we discuss. The motion fulfils those responsibilities, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I listened with some amazement to the closing words of the Lord President. I do not understand how he had the gall to stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about his responsibility to the House and to Back Benchers on both sides for the orderly scrutiny of debate. He has abrogated that responsibility utterly by moving this motion.
Some days ago, the Chief Secretary made a speech in which he deplored the cynicism that he perceived as prevalent in Britain today. That observation was received by most of the populace with hilarious incredulity, it being obvious to everyone else that, as far as the Government are concerned, cynicism, like charity, begins at home. Today, we have before us a classic reason why people are cynical.
The subject of this guillotine motion—taking all control of the debate out of the hands of Parliament and putting it in the hands of the Government—is the biggest single tax hike in British history: taxes on travel, taxes on work, taxes on income, taxes on insurance, taxes on home ownership, and taxes on fuel. For a typical family, that is an extra tax bill of £1,330 over the next two years. The taxes are being imposed because of the utter collapse of the Government's economic policy, and to pick up the tab for the Government's failure.
The purpose of the motion is not simply about taking control of the debate; it is about concealment—the Government think that, if they hide debate away, people will not notice the extra taxes they are paying—and cowardice. The Government are trying to run away from a further vote on value added tax on fuel.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the right hon. Lady realise that, if the timetable motion is passed and we have some sensible hours and sensible procedure for considering the measure, it is much more likely that interested parties outside will pay close attention to it? What is not likely is that, if we allow debate on the Bill to be extended into the early hours through filibustering, we will get a sensible discussion either in the House or among interested parties outside.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should not have intervened at that point, because I had just made the case that the reason for the guillotine is not to allow sensible debate; rather, it is to curtail debate and to avoid a vote on VAT on fuel.

Mr. Stern: The right hon. Lady says that the Government are trying to avoid a further vote on VAT on fuel. The fact is that Labour Members have been soundly trounced every time we have voted on that subject. How much more punishment does the right hon. Lady want?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has just agreed with me. The Government are worried about a debate and vote on VAT on fuel, because they are concerned about the number of times that they can get their Members to support it.
The spectacle of the Lord President trying to defend these guillotines is getting ever more farcical. As I pointed out in the previous guillotine debate, Back Benchers on both sides of the House are here to examine the Government's legislation for mistakes and flaws, and to ensure, so far as we can, that their intentions are exposed and explained. To no legislation does that apply with greater force than legislation on the Budget. To no Budget does it apply with greater force than one that implements the biggest tax hike in British history. Increasingly, the Government are held in contempt, because they consistently treat others with contempt.
This is the fourth guillotine motion in the past four parliamentary weeks. [Interruption.] I am about to explain that to hon. Members. The Lord President justified the first guillotine by saying that there was no need to discuss the detail of a measure that had been announced months ago. He justified the second by saying that, although it had just been announced, the measure was beneficial in its net effect—that in itself is a highly dubious, probably untruthful, claim, which certainly deserves scrutiny. He justified the third by saying that it was an uncontroversial measure and that the debate—only a few hours—was taking too long.
The Lord President cannot make any one of those arguments for this guillotine motion. Even he cannot say that there is no need to discuss a Finance Bill of 244 clauses and 23 schedules—the longest Finance Bill in history, because it contains more taxes than almost any other Finance Bill. Even he cannot say that it is beneficial, when it puts up all our taxes—not to finance much-needed investment in Britain's future but to pay for the Government's failure in the past. He certainly cannot say that it is uncontroversial—either that every British family is picking up the bill, or where and how that money is being raised.
The right hon. Gentleman is being ridiculous when he pretends that the Bill has been debated for too long when only part of one parliamentary day has elapsed. All hon. Members know perfectly well that we intended to finish the second debate on insurance with dispatch last night and to deal today with another important issue—the increased income tax we all face, first, because of frozen personal allowances and, secondly, because of cuts in mortgage interest relief. That is a clear breach of the promises in the Government's fraudulent election manifesto.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) pointed out, on the two previous occasions when Finance Bills were guillotined—apart from debates on the Floor—they spent hours in Committee. In Committee, there were 62 hours on a 56-clause Bill and over 110 hours on a 53-clause Bill—the most recent occasion when a guillotine was imposed. That is not a few hours in Committee and on the Floor.
There is no justification for the precedent of a guillotine at this stage of the Finance Bill, or for its substance. While we can easily see that there is no justification, it is just as hard to see a reason for it. Today, the Lord President suggested, as he did last night, that there was undue and unusual delay in the first debate. He knows, and the whole House knows, that that is absolute claptrap.
It is not in the slightest degree unusual for the first debate to take longer than other debates on this or any other Bill. But overall, as the Lord President said, the previous seven or eight Finance Bills have been dealt with efficiently and expeditiously, although some debates have taken a good deal of time and others have taken less time.
Is the Lord President asking us to believe that yesterday evening he was shocked, stunned and dismayed by the perfectly ordinary spectacle of a debate until 10 pm, and that, when he hunted through his pockets, he happened to find about his person a four-page, carefully drafted guillotine motion? No one believes that. Why did the Lord President not say, as television cooks do, "And here's one I prepared earlier"?
All that matters to any Government is that they get their legislation through in reasonable consistency with their overall legislative programme and timetable. This Government had every reason to suppose that they would get this Bill through, consistent with a reasonable timetable and before Easter—the best possible reason, because we proclaimed to the world that we intended to force another vote on VAT on fuel before the proceedings are completed. Even the Government are not so incompetent that they are unaware that no such vote or debate can be held within the rules of the House once the tax is imposed on 1 April.
The Government knew perfectly well that, if we were to have another vote on VAT on fuel, they would have their Bill out of Committee before Easter. Not only did the Government know that that was our proclaimed intention; the clauses on which we intended to vote are on the Order Paper.
That means that, to ensure proper public scrutiny and coverage of this substantial Bill, the Committee might have to work some long hours into the night. But the Government claim that they are not trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, so they could have no objection to the Bill being properly dealt with, as long as it was expeditiously dealt with. The fact is—the evidence for this is on our side—that that is what we were trying to do.
The Government are trying to avoid either a full discussion on the scale that both sides of the House normally think is needed for a Bill of this length, or a vote on our amendment about VAT on fuel, or both. It has now become clear that it is a further vote on VAT from which the Government are trying to run away, because the Lord President said that he does not anticipate Report or Third Reading—of course, we want that vote on Report—until after Easter.

Mr. Newton: I want to be absolutely clear, because I have become a little puzzled by the drift of the right hon. Lady's argument. Is the case which she is presenting to the House that the Government have provided too much time for discussion of the Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: We have made it clear that the Bill could have come out of Committee before Easter, and that we would have sought to ensure that there was a reasonable debate within that time in Committee to scrutinise the whole Bill. The Lord President has tried to claim that the evidence of the debate so far in some way suggests that the Opposition are trying to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I am pointing out to him, the House and the country not only that there is no truth in that suggestion, but that he had

every reason in the world to know that we intended to scrutinise the Bill properly, and to make sure that we had a vote on VAT before the Bill left the House.

Sir Terence Higgins: I am genuinely puzzled by what the right hon. Lady is saying. In what way does the imposition of a guillotine prevent a vote on VAT?

Mrs. Beckett: In my opening remarks, I deliberately used the words that the Government intended to "take control" of the timetable. That is clearly what they intend.
We had anticipated that we would be able to deal with the Bill, and then have a vote on VAT on the Floor of the House. That is a perfectly reasonable procedure, and that is why we are so suspicious about why the Government have tabled the guillotine. They either wish not to allow enough time to scrutinise the Bill reasonably in Committee and to curtail what otherwise might be a lengthy debate, or they want to take control of the timetable so that they can prevent Report taking place before Easter.
If we are being unduly suspicious, and if it is simply due to sheer incompetence that the Government have not appreciated that we wanted a debate on VAT before Easter, even though we said so repeatedly and even though the Order Paper confirms it, let the Lord President get to his feet now and say that he was in error. Let him say that he did not realise that the Opposition wanted to have a vote before Easter, and that he is perfectly prepared to allow Report and a vote on VAT before Easter. There would then be no difficulty.
I am perfectly happy to give way to any Minister who will give the House an explanation. No? Are there no volunteers? The question of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) has just been answered. The Government wish to take control of the timetable because they do not wish to have a vote on VAT and, after all, they are being perfectly consistent.
The Government would not let members of their own party discuss VAT on fuel at all at the Conservative party conference, and they do not want hon. Members to have a chance to vote for our new clause. The reason is quite simple. The clause contains a new and sensible proposal. It proposes that we delay the implementation of VAT on fuel for a year, and there are many Conservative Members who could perfectly well vote for such a clause.
Much has changed since those Conservative Members voted for VAT on fuel in the first place. We know that, in 1992, the Government wrote off nearly twice as much money in uncollected taxes as will be raised by VAT on fuel in the first year. That shows that there is always a choice, and that the Government have a choice whether they need to go ahead with the measure this year. Secondly, we have seen the compensation package which has been promised for the least well-off, and most hon. Members judge it to be wholly inadequate.
Thirdly, we now know that it is only one of a whole gaggle of new taxes. VAT on fuel was presented originally as an alternative to increased taxes on income, and we now know that it is in addition to increased taxes on income.
Fourthly, we have now been told by the Government and by the Financial Secretary that the tax package of which VAT on fuel forms a part—the biggest tax package in British history—could check the recovery which everyone in Britain wants to see.
Those are four good reasons for delaying VAT on fuel for a year, and four good reasons why the Government are afraid to have that vote.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Does the right hon. Lady understand that she is completely and utterly wrong on that point and, as usual, is well behind the times? Does she understand that the reason why Conservative Members are perfectly happy with VAT on fuel is the generous compensation package that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor introduced in the Budget, which satisfied Conservative Members and our constituents?

Mrs. Beckett: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and I am sure that his constituents would be even more interested. His remarks do not wholly square with the letters that some of his hon. Friends have been sending.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the interruption.
Bearing in mind the exchange that has just taken place, will you give some consideration during the next few minutes to whether you would be prepared to accept from anywhere in the House a manuscript amendment altering the date of Report from 29 March to 15 March? That would give the Government an opportunity to meet the point made by my right hon. Friend, and the Committee stage would then finish early enough for Report to take place before Good Friday. That is clearly a way out which would be acceptable to the Opposition. That would require you to accept a manuscript amendment for that date, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That would have to be a matter for Madam Speaker herself to decide, not for me as her deputy.

Mrs. Beckett: That is most helpful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My strong advice to my hon. Friend is that he writes that a report should come back to the House before Easter into any motion or amendment which he might move. He would otherwise rely on the good faith of the Government, and I do not think that I need say more about that.
I was most interested that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) said that Conservative Members were delighted with the compensation package, and that they no longer had problems with VAT on fuel. First, may I tell him that we have received substantial petitions from people in his constituency complaining about the impostion of VAT on fuel. I am surprised if he has not also received the petitions.

Mr. Streeter: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituents did not think that it was worth while writing to him, and I must admit that I am beginning to see why. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the happiness of Conservative Members do not square with letters that some of his hon. Friends have been sending to constituents, which some of hose constituents are inconsiderately sending on to us.
One letter from a Conservative Member said, for example, that he was worried about VAT on fuel, and that he would have been delighted to vote against it. Owing to the incompetence of the Labour party, however, the hon. Gentleman did not have a chance. The hon. Member who wrote that letter has had one chance since that time, and he has not shown up in the Lobby to vote against it. The Opposition are willing to recognise that it may be difficult for that hon. Member, and we are prepared to give him a second chance. Why will the Government not do the same?

Sir Terence Higgins: I am still genuinely puzzled. If it would have been possible for the right hon. Lady to table an amendment on Report on VAT on fuel, why is she unable to do so in Committee on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. We want a further vote on VAT on the Floor of the House with the whole House able to vote. We want the House as a whole, not merely those who serve on the Committee, to have an opportunity to defer it. We can only do that by bringing it back on Report.

Sir Terence Higgins: I genuinely do not understand. If the right hon. Lady were so anxious to have another vote on VAT on fuel, why did not she suggest that we have the vote in Committee on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: We are not in that position. We must have a new clause to move this provision, and the means of doing that is to do so on Report. We provided the opportunity to vote on Second Reading, and we now want the opportunity of a new clause.

Sir Terence Higgins: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to continue to debate this subject with the right hon. Gentleman. He will readily acknowledge that what we are suggesting would certainly provide the means for the House to discuss and to reach a decision on the matter. The only thing which could prevent that is if, for some reason—

Mr. John Greenway: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I do not really want to take more time, and I have given way many times. However, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Greenway: I have been listening carefully to what the right hon. Lady has said. The gist of it seems to be that it does not matter any more how much time is available for consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee and all the technical measures to which she has referred, so long as it is out of Committee in time for there to be the Report before Easter. Hon. Members who are concerned about proper debate—whether in Committee on the Floor of the House or Upstairs—want adequate time for discussion, and my right hon. Friend the Lord President has provided adequate time through this motion.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point completely. We believe that adequate time can be provided in Committee. It will not be easy, but it is possible, and it can be handled expeditiously and in the same way as previous Finance Bills. We do not have the hon. Gentleman's trust in the Government's good faith, however, or believe that that is what they intend to do; and I suspect that we, rather than the hon. Gentleman, will turn out to be correct. We believed and believe—it has been


confirmed by this debate—that the Government moved the motion to take control of the Bill so that they can prevent Parliament from having an opportunity to decide on the matter.
It is strange to hear members of the Government talk—in this debate and on other guillotine motions on various measures—as if they were a popular Government, engaged only in carrying out the election pledges that they so recently made, and being unreasonably obstructed by the Opposition somehow misusing the procedures of the House.
In fact, they are a ludicrously incompetent Government—the most unpopular in modern times, and not because they have the courage to take hard decisions, as they claim, but because they did not have the courage to tell the country the truth about those decisions, for which, in any case, they always blame someone else; and because they are breaking all the election pledges they so recently made. Not only did the Government lack the courage and integrity to tell the truth about the state of Britain: they lack the integrity and courage to face the music now.
We are not misusing the procedures of the House, but are using them for the purpose for which they were intended—to hold an elected Government to account on behalf of the people who elected them. We shall continue to do so. They are a Government of weak men, with weak excuses, and a weakening hold on power.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move, in paragraph 1(1), leave out 'Ten o'clock' and insert 'midnight'.
The amendment occurred to us last night, when we had precious little time—as did the rest of the House—to take account of the business statement. The Government have tabled ever more embellished guillotine motions. They could have taken into account—but did not—the fact that a matter of privilege would have to be discussed on the Floor of the House this afternoon. That has eaten into a good hour of the time allocated for consideration of the Finance Bill, although that time was already constrained. For that reason alone, the Leader of the House should be prepared to accept our modest amendment to enable another two hours of debate. It will allow only the amount of time that the Government thought reasonable before we lost time on the question of privilege.
It will seem wholly unreasonable if the Government set their face against this attempt to protect urgent consideration of brand new taxes and issues of fundamental importance in the Finance Bill. Those issues were considered important enough to be debated in a Committee of the whole House. As the House knows, this debate can continue for three hours, and we are likely to have to squeeze the three remaining substantial items into one and a half to two and a half hours of debate, which is totally unreasonable.
Although it is very much the least worst option, I am offering the Government a chance to give the House a more sensible timetable within which to debate the outstanding clauses on the. Floor of the House before the Finance Bill goes into Committee. Unless the Leader of the House accepts that offer, I shall not feel able to support the guillotine motion.
We are in an extremely serious situation. I take a slightly different view from that of the right hon. Member

for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). We are getting to the stage where it is not in the House's best interests to deal with matters in such an ad hoc way.
I particularly noted two things that the Leader of the House said. He thought that the timetable motion was inevitable, but I do not believe it was. The precedents that he quoted certainly do not enable him to argue that that is the case. No Finance Bill has ever been guillotined before the Committee stage, and this is a very serious situation. By definition, the Finance Bill is the most important legislation to be considered by the House during a Session. It is unacceptable for the Government to take the draconian step of casually guillotining it before it goes into Committee.
The Finance Bill is yet another measure to be guillotined. I repeat what I said during the last debate on a guillotine motion, because it is true—to date, every Bill that this House has referred to the House of Lords has been subject to a timetable motion.
The Leader of the House said that it was his duty to protect the rights of Members. That is true, but he is not doing so by responding willy-nilly and casually on an ad hoc basis. I understand that he is not in control of the context within which he is taking the action, but candidly it will not do to respond in this piecemeal fashion.
When the Finance Bill is dealt with in this way, the Government are entitled to say that the House is not being treated properly. The Leader of the House should look for a longer-term solution if he cannot get guarantees that the war of attrition that is going on over the heads of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends will not continue indefinitely.
The House will require something systematic to be done to protect Members' interests. I do not say that lightly, because, if changes are made, they will be made for all time, but we are reaching the stage where such action must be taken. The right hon. Gentleman is not discharging his duties as Leader of the House unless he considers that option seriously. If he has a proposition, right hon. and hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches will listen to him and carefully consider whatever action he feels is necessary.
I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), because I shadowed her in her social security days and in previous incarnations, but she owes the House more of an explanation about the end that the Opposition are pursuing through the disruption.
I perfectly understand that the Government should be given a hard time. I have said that I am in favour of doing so, within the normal rules and regulations of the House. One does not have to be a parliamentary strategic genius, however, to work out how one can bring this House to a grinding halt, especially if more than 200 Members of Parliament are willing to comply with one's request. One does not have to be clever: it is a very easy thing to do.
The House is teetering on the brink of grinding to a halt. If the official Opposition are intent on doing that, they have a duty to explain why—if they have a plan, they have not vouchsafed it to me. Perhaps there is some great strategic and clever game plan, but all I hear are stories leaked from the office of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the disruption will continue until the Euro-elections in June or July.
I hope to heaven that the Opposition know what they are doing, because the Government must get through their business. If that incontrovertible principle is not followed,


this place will descend into chaos. Such shenanigans puzzle and perplex people outside: they think that we are not doing the job we are paid to do when such an operation continues and the Government are forced to take action that is not in the short-term interests of the House.

Mrs. Beckett: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I am having difficulty following his point. I remind him, first, that the House of Commons is like any other institution or place of work—it works best when people seek to work with a reasonable degree of mutual respect, co-operation and good faith. Secondly, reasonable procedures were abandoned because the Government arbitrarily, without consultation or good reason, chose to impose a guillotine on two consecutive Bills. Nobody—not even the hon. Gentleman in his most charitable mode—can say that, since that date, the Government have not continued to treat the House with contempt.
The Lord President may talk about disruption because our debates take place until 10 o'clock at night, but the hon. Gentleman, at least, knows better than that.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is tit for tat—and where does it get us? The hon. Lady says that the Government acted scandalously. I was present during the debate on the guillotine motion, and I supported her on it. I am simply saying that I understand the analysis, but what is the prescription? What is she asking for? What needs to change so that we can return to what she considers the only sensible way to get the House to work? If the hon. Lady will say what she wants, I will say whether I am in favour of it, and we can get on with real life.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman the acceptable price for a return to more normal relationships, but I am prepared to tell him that it stands out a mile that the Government are behaving unreasonably by continuing to introduce unprecedented guillotines.

Mr. Kirkwood: We must all be careful to measure exactly what we are trying to do. The Government hold all the cards, and we are not in a position to control matters, so if the official Opposition do not clarify their objective and if the Government are hit with a series of changes to the Standing Orders, they will not be easily reversed later.
The Lord President probably goes around with guillotine motions in his inside pocket. I bet that, if he turned out his wallet, it would contain draft changes to Standing Orders that are waiting to be used any minute now. The official Opposition are walking into an open trap if they do not realise that that is coming down the track, and continue this disruption without a specific time scale in mind. They will then deserve all they get.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman says that the Leader of the House is walking around with draft amendments to Standing Orders in his pocket. If the Government intend to amend Standing Orders to force their business through the House, is that not another example of their treating the House with contempt?

Mr. Kirkwood: Again, that is tit for tat, but it does not help me. If the hon. Gentleman would say what he wanted, I could have a sensible discussion with him.

Mrs. Beckett: Exactly what does the hon. Gentleman suggest as an alternative? He has thought of a phrase—"tit for tat"—which he hopes will make him look statesmanlike. Does he suggest that we simply give in and say to the Government, "Oh well, never mind. Just carry on"?

Mr. Kirkwood: One of two things must happen: either the right hon. Lady will have to "give in", as she puts it, or she must say what she wants to achieve so that we know when she achieves it. I am trying to make sense of this matter, and simply saying that the House is in danger of grinding to a halt. The hon. Lady is as much to blame as the Government for bringing forward the Standing Orders amendment.
I did not mean to get drawn into such a discussion, but, as I have started, I shall finish it. If the Leader of the House makes changes on a piecemeal basis, such as a timetable motion here or there, with no checks or balances, the House will be worse off than it would be had we had the whole Jopling package. At least the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) gave us some return for the cost of timetable motions.
I happen to be in favour of timetable motions, and the sooner we can get our hands on some sensible amendments to the Jopling package the better. Although some of it is loopy, the vast majority is extremely sensible.
The House of Commons is in danger of spiralling out of control. There will be an unedifying spectacle as Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House blame each other for the ensuing chaos. That is not good enough. It is in the interests of neither the House nor taxpayers.
I apologise for having been drawn into that level of argument. None the less, the Government have proposed this guillotine motion prematurely. There is no rush to bring forward this legislation. When the Budget system changed, the date by which the provisional collection of taxes legislation must be completed was pushed back to 5 May. This is only 1 February, so what is the hurry? There is no need for the motion, which is why the case for this strict timetable motion was found wanting, and we should reject it.
As to whether a clause on VAT could be added, I am perplexed about why the Business Committee cannot meet and make arrangements for the timetable to accommodate that. If the official Opposition have the discipline to do so, they can simply stay ahead of that timetable by two or three days. They can then find the two or three days they need on the Floor of the House and, if they are really that bothered and can keep their troops in order, they will win a couple of days and can have the vote before Good Friday. So what is the problem? I wonder whether the official Opposition know what they are doing.
Nevertheless, unless we have an extra couple of hours' debate this evening, I cannot support the Government in the Lobbies on this guillotine motion.

Sir Terence Higgins: I have now spoken on some 30 Finance Bills. On about half of those, I spoke as an Opposition Member or a Government Front-Bench Member. However, I have never previously spoken in a debate on a guillotine motion, but am provoked to do so for reasons similar to those of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—I am genuinely worried about how matters are developing.
On the point that I raised in an intervention with the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about a vote on VAT on fuel, I still do not understand why, if she wants a vote on VAT on fuel, she could not have tabled a new clause for selection for debate on the Floor of the House. There is no reason why she should not have done that. The right hon. Lady may have felt that she could not have negotiated that if a total breakdown in the usual channels had taken place. That is a matter for speculation, but I see no technical reason—I speak with some experience in the matter—why, if the Opposition 'wish to engineer a debate on VAT on the Floor of the House in Committee, they should not have done so.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman and I are clearly at cross purposes. We cannot table a new clause at this stage in the proceedings. The Government chose the topic, as they always do, for this stage of the Bill. [Interruption.] There are no usual channels at the moment. And even when that is done through the usual channels, the Government choose topics to be discussed on the Floor of the House. We usually try to reach a degree of accommodation, but they have the power.

Sir Terence Higgins: There is no reason why the right hon. Lady should not have tabled a new clause for debate in Committee and there is no reason why that new clause should not have been selected for debate on the Floor of the House. Of course, that requires some negotiation; if she is not prepared to operate the usual channels, it might be difficult and in that sense she is hoist by her own petard. I do not want to generate an antagonistic atmosphere because I am seeking to pour oil on troubled waters.

Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have. Before I came to the House, and when he was here, the entire Finance Bill Committee was taken on the Floor of the House. When the change was made to consider most of it in Standing Committee, it is clear from "Erskine May" that only the part of the Bill which received a Second Reading could be selected for debate by a Committee of the whole House. It is not within the remit of the Opposition or any hon. Member to dream up a new clause for a Committee of the whole House. That can be done only at the end of the Bill's consideration in Standing Committee. That decision was made when the present arrangements were put in place not to take the whole Committee stage on the Floor of the House.

Sir Terence Higgins: I would have to check on that, but I see no reason why it should not have been arranged through the usual channels.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an argument between the two sides of the House as to whether it would have been possible for the Opposition to table a new clause which, through the usual channels, we could have brought to the Floor of the House during the consideration of the Bill by a Committee of the whole House. I seek your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether that would have been possible under the rules of order of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I certainly cannot make a ruling off the cuff now. I need time to ponder.

Sir Terence Higgins: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you show great wisdom in these matters.

Mrs. Beckett: It is not our understanding of the procedure, but if the Financial Secretary is right, I repeat the offer that I made to him earlier. By tabling our new clauses and saying that we want to take them on Report, we are saying that we believe that it is possible to scrutinise the Bill, get the report back before Easter and have a debate and a vote on VAT. If the Financial Secretary has no problems with that, let him ensure that the Government do nothing to impede it. We are quite content with that.

Sir Terence Higgins: We may or may not be making progress, but I certainly hope that we shall.
I follow what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said and I do not consider that the current position is in the interests of the House. None the less, in the present overheated atmosphere I shall support my right hon. Friend's proposals for a guillotine. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that we shall have any reasonable debate, but instead long debates at the beginning and short debates at the end of considering a massive Bill.

Mr. Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to ponder a further point of order related to the previous one? If it is possible for us to discuss a new clause on the Floor of the House in Committee, does the present guillotine rule out a further day on the Floor of the House in Committee to discuss just such a new clause?

Sir Terence Higgins: I fear that my speech will be longer than I intended and I apologise for that.
Many of our strategic and tactical problems stem from the fact that in his Budget last spring my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said that we would have a unified Budget the following autumn.
A decade ago, the Procedure Committee on finance, which I chaired, set out the arguments both ways and did not decide in favour of or against a unified Budget, but it was absolutely clear that before embarking on that course one needed massive and widespread consultation, especially on timing. Many of our problems stem directly from the fact that that did not happen. The consequences were that just before Christmas the Government found it necessary to guillotine two Bills because they did not have time to carry them through on schedule. As a result, they incensed the Opposition and created the present unsatisfactory situation.
That having been said, there is a case for reconsidering the whole issue of the unified Budget. The Opposition should have a responsibility—as do the Government, the Liberal Democrat party and all right hon. and hon. Members—for trying to get our annual financial programme back on a sensible basis. Until recently, we had three main occasions: the autumn statement, the public expenditure White Paper debate and the Budget. They have all been concertinad into a short period of time. Perhaps we shall have a couple of days on public expenditure just before the summer recess; none the less, the schedule is out of kilter.
Both sides of the House must have a sensible arrangement for a procedural basis. I am deeply concerned about what is happening at the moment, particularly on the broader question of timing. For example, the deadline for getting the Finance Bill through, which used to be 5 August, has been brought forward to 5 May. In other


words, it has been brought forward by exactly the same amount as the Budget, but between the Budget and the deadline we have the Christmas recess—the Finance Bill may or may not be published before it—and the Easter recess.
The period for consultation for outside interests and so on is severely curtailed. There is no reason why the Budget and the deadline should have been brought forward to the same extent. There could have been a longer period, as was proposed by the Treasury Committee and the Procedure Committee, so that we could have a more reasonable time. I do not imagine that the Treasury will be on holiday on 5 May, so there is no desperate need to get the Bill through.
The unified Budget is an illusion. It is not a unified Budget in the sense of public expenditure and taxation being considered together. That is not even true in Government. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary takes the view that the effect of unification is to bring home to spending Ministers rather more appreciation of the tax implications of their proposals. That may be so, but we do not need a unified Budget for that purpose.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is still determining what is happening to taxation. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Security cannot say that he would like to spend more on something and so taxes should increase on something else: it is still all in the control of the Chancellor. The House is not in a position, as the Procedure Committee recently suggested, to put forward proposals on whether taxes or public expenditure should be increased. We are still in the traditional position where the House can only reduce them, so the Budget is not a unified Budget in that sense either.
In addition, we are supposed to be debating taxation and public expenditure together. We still have all the old traditional taxation debates, but there is no corresponding stream of debates on public expenditure. We have the Estimates days, which always fulfil a useful function, but there is no serious debate on individual items based on reports from individual Departments on which Select Committees could report and which could lead to a separate stream of debates on public expenditure, which would be sensible if we were really fulfilling our jobs.
This all gives one grave cause for concern against a background of the biggest Finance Bill ever. That is not disputed by anyone; it is the only two-volume Finance Bill ever.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Terence Higgins: No, I have been talking much too long and I shall make only one more major point.
The Select Committee on Procedure, the Treasury Committee and others have strongly advocated splitting the Bill into a taxes management Bill on the one hand, with the more political aspects of it on the other. I still believe that the arguments in favour of that are overwhelming and that the arguments against it, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put to the Procedure Committee, do not stand up. There is no great difficulty in splitting the Bill. We can both say which are technical matters and which are not. The reality is that some nasty things are hidden in parts of it—for example, retrospection and

whether the Inland Revenue can examine accountants' records even though a mistake was made. The Bill contains a series of difficult items and also a lot of technical stuff.
One of the objections that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made against splitting the Bill was that it would have to have two Second Readings and two Report stages. It is seriously arguable—I have not thought about this until recently—whether one should not have the Budget and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, split the Bill into two separate Committees, which could then consider the technical aspects as against the political aspects, bring it back for Report and then on to Third Reading. In the light of the timetable motion, I think that it is a bit late to do that, but it is important that we should seek to get the whole of our financial procedures on an even keel.

Mr. Illsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Terence Higgins: With great respect, I am coming to my concluding remarks.
On balance, we have serious tactical problems, for the reasons that I have mentioned. It is important that we get the usual channels working as soon as possible. That is important not only for the immediate reasons of the Bill, but we must get the fundamental programme for the future consideration of our financial affairs on the right basis, which can happen only through consultation on both sides. The sooner that begins, the better.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in a debate on an allocation of time motion since I have been a Member of the House. There have been many opportunities to speak —far too many. I have held back until now because I have wanted to develop the point in my mind before bouncing it off the House of Commons.
What the Government are doing is an affront to parliamentary institutions and fulfils Lord Hailsham's idea about parliamentary dictatorship: one wins a general election, gets the parliamentary arithmetic and pushes through legislation regardless of the views inside or outside the Chamber. Of course, that means bad legislation. It also means that an Opposition can win the the debate but time after time they lose the vote; the Government arrogantly proceed. The guillotine motion is bad for those reasons and shows the arrogance of the Government in their approach to Parliament and democratic institutions. I believe that it is time that every Back-Bench Member of Parliament paused to consider whether we should take away from the Executive the capacity and power to decide what should be parliamentary business.
When I have discussed that concept with one or two of my colleagues, they have looked bewildered, because they have been brought up on the basic British constitution A-level and think that it cannot be done in the Westminster-style constitution. I disagree. It seems to me that we should have, in relation to the Finance Bill and other legislation, a Select Committee of senior Members of the House of Commons with whom the Government would negotiate, every year, "train paths" for legislation. They would not only discuss the amount of parliamentary time that is given to each Bill but also the volume of Bills. In my mind's eye I see a Select Committee, probably chaired by


the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) or the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). They would be ideal candidates for the chairmanship of a Select Committee that was distanced from the Executive. Of course, there would be a parliamentary majority on it for the largest party, but nevertheless it would be able to decide how much legislation and at what pace and 'volume Parliament could and should allow for Government Bills.
That is different from Jopling, because he assumes that the parliamentary timetable of the business would still be dictated by the Government. It is that principle that we should consider breeching. It would make for a much better Parliament and better legislation. It would temper the excesses of Government and give them time and pause to determine whether legislation, in its entirety or in part, was prudent for the country or even their parliamentary fortunes. It is archaic that the business of the House, under the guillotine motion, should be dictated to us by the Lord President of the Council, who acts as judge and jury—he obviously had the Opposition in mind—and decides whether we are being tendentious, are filibustering, or that the quality of our speeches is fair. That is nonsense.
Let us consider the Lord President of the Council. The present incumbent of that office is quite a decent bloke. Contrary to his better judgment, since I have been here, he has been kind and courteous to me. No doubt he is kind to animals, too. Nevertheless, his office is wrong. That point has been brought home this afternoon by the fact that he can and does behave as judge and jury in this place on the quality and relevance of the speeches and the behaviour and performance of Members of Parliament. I would like to see that changed. In parenthesis, the title "Lord President of the Council" is also a nonsense. That grand title sends the wrong signals to people outside about the business of this place.
The other day I tabled a parliamentary question asking whether the right hon. Gentleman would set out in Hansard the Privy Council oath. He said no; it was secret. What a peculiar set up. We have a supposed open Government, yet we cannot know what is the Privy Council oath. 'The Lord President of the Council presides over such humbug and the business of this place. That is wrong. It is time that his office was reviewed and, in my view, swept away.
Reference has been made to yesterday's debate. The truth is that the Conservative party Whips said to their hon. Friends, "For goodness sake, do not get up. Do not come out of your corner fighting. We do not want to give an opportunity to the Opposition to explore the foolishness and consequences of the air passenger duty. Keep quiet." As a consequence, there was the apparent disparity that Opposition Member after Opposition Member spoke, but no Conservative Members came out of their corners to defend the proposal for which they were prepared to vote.

Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that I spoke briefly in yesterday's debate precisely to lend my support to what the Government are doing with the air passenger duty. The fact is that the imbalance came about not because of any reticence on the Government side—we were merely following a disciplined approach—but because Opposition Members were speaking for too long and filibustering.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has a number of distinguishing features, one of which is that, unlike his

colleagues, in parliamentary terms he came out fighting. There was a dearth of hon. Members who were prepared to speak and defend that policy, particularly those whose constituencies are around regional airports or whose work force and the economy of their area are dependent on regional airports or the airline industry. I think that you, Mr. Morris, were in the Chair. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) used the occasion to suggest that the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's memory is failing him.

Mr. Mackinlay: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will take my word for it. On another occasion last night, the hon. Member for Torbay suggested that, in place of the tax under discussion, value added tax should be imposed on the package holiday industry. The body language of the Paymaster General suggested that he wanted the ground to swallow him up: he was acutely embarrassed.
Yesterday, Conservative speakers did not give the Government's policies sustained support. The message went out—I except the remarks of mavericks and of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) —that the Conservatives wanted to minimise the opportunity for debate, and to deny the Opposition a chance to explore and expose the foolishness of that tax proposal and others.
As has already been said, the Government fear a further airing of their proposal to impose VAT on domestic fuel, and of all the consequences for the poor and disadvantaged. They fear the political consequences, particularly in view of the approaching municipal and European elections. I am not a very sophisticated man, but let me advance a proposition: all that is required is an opportunity for the House to vote on the proposed imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. Not only Opposition Members but people outside want that. People want to know whether their Members of Parliament were for or against the proposal.
Earlier opportunities have been blurred by parliamentary procedures and the wording of motions. Ultimately, however, we want to know who supports the proposal, who is against it and who—among Conservative Members in particular—had the courage to oppose it, despite the party machine.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his party failed to table an amendment to the Budget debate back in December, which would have given hon. Members the opportunity to debate the proposal? Was the reason incompetence or forgetfulness—or both?

Mr. Mackinlay: You will observe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am being advised by my colleagues. I have candidly confessed that I am not a very sophisticated person: all I want is for the House to have an opportunity to decide whether it supports the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel—and, implicit in that, the ability of our constituents to run their fingers down the Division list and find out how their Members of Parliament voted.
There has been dispute about both the wording of motions on the issue of VAT on domestic fuel and the timing and structure of those debates; but we have had no opportunity to debate the issue in black and white. This guillotine motion is frustrating because it is preventing us


from showing the electorate where we stand on this important matter. I would welcome the opportunity for the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for instance, to go into the Lobby and vote on the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel: it would enable my hon. Friends and myself to point out to his constituents that he supported it.
I take a fairly ecumenical view of the Liberal Democrats outside the House. I have always said that the defeat of this Tory Government is of paramount importance, and that anyone who joins us in the Lobbies with the aim of defeating them is welcome. Having listened to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), however, I must add that his party must decide whether it seriously wants to frustrate the Government in their implementation of policies designed to disadvantage ordinary working people. More important, are the Liberal Democrats prepared to do all that they can to defeat the Government and bring forward the date of a general election?
In short, the Liberal Democrats must decide whether they are with us or against us. The speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire betrayed a confusion of thought. Liberal Democrats are trying to have it both ways. The challenge, or test, lies in whether they are prepared to vote with Labour on this issue and others between now and the general election, thus demonstrating that they oppose the Tory party. I hope that, in areas of the United Kingdom where the Liberal Democrats allegedly hope to maximise their majority over the Conservatives, potential Labour voters and others opposed to the Conservatives will note the ambiguous stance of Liberal Democrats in this debate and others.
The repeated use of the guillotine by the Leader of the House and his colleagues will ultimately prove foolish from the point of view of the Conservatives. They have been in office for so long that they see themselves as almost divine; few Conservative Members can envisage the day on which they might just be sitting over here. Two years from now there will be a Labour Government, and that Government will have an important duty: they will have to get through a bottleneck of legislation in a short time. After 14 years of Conservative government, we shall want to reverse many decisions—legitimately, because we shall have a mandate.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): More spending.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Chief Secretary may interrupt from a sedentary position, but we shall have a mandate. One thing that we have learnt over the past 15 years is the need to stick to the programme and press on. I hope that my hon. Friends will do that. I also hope that—because one of the hallmarks of the Labour party and its traditions is democracy—we will restrain ourselves from giving way to the legitimate temptation to behave as Conservative Members have behaved in recent years.

Mr. Portillo: Will the Labour party's mandate be to spend more, or to spend less?

Mr. Mackinlay: Our mandate will be to support and sustain Britain; to restore essential public services that are

much missed by working people; to invest in our manufacturing base, which has haemorrhaged over the past 15 years—and much more.
Our capacity to right the wrongs of 15 years will, however, be limited by problems of parliamentary time. Nurses, teachers, parents, trade unionists and others, both in and out of work, will all be seeking remedies for the excesses of the Thatcher years and the era of the present Prime Minister. We shall be faced with the temptation of using the guillotine. I hope that we shall act with restraint; but Conservative Members might be prudent to reflect for a few moments on the fact that there will soon be a change of Government. Then decisions about parliamentary timetables, the use of the guillotine and appointments to boards and police authorities will be taken by my right hon. Friends. Because we are democrats, we shall refrain from the excesses demonstrated by the Lord President of the Council today, and for a long time before today.
I was not able to make the point when I was interrupted by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I say now that we shall review and modernise the United Kingdom's parliamentary institutions and constitutional structure. I may then be able to persuade my right hon. Friends to consider ways and means of ensuring that this legislature —in particular, Back-Bench Members—can influence the volume of legislation and the capacity to facilitate serious debate on legislation.
This Finance Bill is a monstrosity. There is not a stapler capable of going through it. Such is its size that it has had to be produced in two parts. Never before have we had a Finance Bill as thick as this one. When you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, became a Member of Parliament Bills were not printed on A4 paper. If the paper size had not been changed, this Bill would have had to be produced in four or five parts.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Ministers have claimed that the Bill is 40 per cent. longer. That figure is based on numbers of pages. The Finance Bill of 1993 had 69 clauses and 12 schedules, so that there was potential for 81 debates; this year's Bill has 244 clauses and 23 schedules —a total of 267 provisions. In other words, this measure is three times as big, in terms of number of provisions, as last year's. Here we have a further example of the Government's disgraceful conduct.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is right. Very often Members of Parliament are approached by constituents —people who have supported and sustained the Tory party over the years—with complaints about measures that they have discovered are on the statute book even though they have not been properly scrutinised in this House. An example is the Child Support Agency, which we are to debate tomorrow. An enormous number of my constituents—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this matter is to be debated tomorrow.

Mr. Mackinlay: In the not-too-distant future this House will have to address itself to the effects of the Government's foolish behaviour in relation to the Child Support Agency.
Many constituents have told both Conservative and Labour Members quite openly that, although they voted Conservative at the last and previous general elections, they feel betrayed by the Government. To such people I


have to say that Parliament is a peculiar place, that it is not geared up for detailed scrutiny of the plethora of legislation that the Conservative Government are railroading through. I have to admit that this will be a problem for the next Labour Government unless we are prepared for self-denial —as I am sure we shall be. In any case, we shall devolve power, and many matters will be dealt with by assemblies in Edinburgh and elsewhere.
The Lord President of the Council has complained about the behaviour of Opposition Members yesterday and about the content of their speeches. I have a complaint to throw back at the right hon. Gentleman. In the course of my few moments' speech last night on the proposed air passenger duty I challenged the Paymaster General to tell us whether there had been discussions with the Isle of Man Government about the impact of this tax on their affairs. I wanted to make the point that, even if there is no legal requirement, there is a constitutional convention that the Isle of Man Chief Minister and his colleagues are approached at an early stage and given an opportunity to make representations. The right hon. Gentleman was not listening when I tried to make that point.
I referred also to Northern Ireland and expressed regret at the absence of Northern Ireland Members. This measure certainly has an impact in their Province. The Paymaster General, in his winding-up speech, failed to respond to my points. This illustrates how, when we make legitimate points—sometimes in the form of questions—to Members on the Treasury Bench they are ignored.

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that I did not respond specifically to his points. In fact, I have had talks with the Isle of Man Minister about this tax. The reason for my not responding last night was that I was under very considerable pressure from both sides of the Committee at the end of a very long debate, in which I was speaking for the second time. A good many points—not just those of the hon. Gentleman—were left to be responded to at a later stage.

Mr. Mackinlay: No doubt the Paymaster General will deal with these points in Committee, where there will not be so many Members of Parliament as witnesses and to which the television cameras do not have access. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was under pressure. He wanted to get the debate over with the minimum contribution and the minimum defence of the Government's policy on the imposition of this tax.
I shall go into the Division Lobby in opposition to this guillotine motion because I believe, above all else, that the House of Commons is not scrutinising adequately the vast amount of legislation with which it has to deal. This makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy and produces bad legislation.

Mr. Newton: I have been resisting the temptation to get to my feet. Although I am prepared to pay the hon. Gentleman as many compliments as he pays me, I have to say that brevity is not notable among his many qualities. I want to draw attention to the apparent paradox between most of the contents of his speech during the last few minutes and the demand of his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that less time be provided for debate on the Bill.

Mr. Mackinlay: Either the Lord President of the Council is on a different planet or he has been listening to a different debate. The Labour party wants an opportunity to debate and expose the Government's proposal to impose value added tax on domestic fuel—a measure that will hit poor and disadvantaged people. We want our constituents to see who supported this decision and who opposed it.
When the Lord President interrupted me I was explaining why I shall oppose the guillotine motion. What the Government are doing makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy, and it is time to demonstrate that they are completely disregarding the people of this country. They are imposing taxes that will have an enormous impact on many individuals and many enterprises. What is being done will have a deleterious effect on manufacturing industry and on our capacity to export. It will be bad for Britain.
I look forward to the day when my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South is Lord President of the Council so that we may have a sensible and fair timetable for all legislation and may take the initiative of reviewing and revising our rather outdated parliamentary institutions and our rather old and inadequate constitutional structures. That day is not far away.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I shall endeavour to be very brief. In the interests of allowing the debate to proceed rapidly, I do not intend to give way.
I listened carefully to the rather entertaining speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). At least one rather interesting and serious point lay behind much of his rhetoric: the House faces a choice between an approach to the management of our business that rests principally on the usual channels—parliamentary management by party duopoly, which is why the Liberals and nationalists have cause to complain from time to time—or greater control over the allocation of parliamentary time.
I think that, rationally, the Speaker should make more of such decisions. That would be an alternative approach. In other mature democracies, especially the United States, more responsibility for the allocation of time is given to the occupant of the chair. I am not advocating that solution, but there are other ways of proceeding, and perhaps in future the House will conclude that it is necessary to look more widely.
The debate is a bit like Hamlet without the Prince. The evil genius of the situation, whereby civilised conduct has apparently broken down between the two main parties, is the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is not in his place tonight but who has much more influence on such matters than even the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), dignified though she may be by the technical title of deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I had much sympathy for the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who spoke much good sense about the timetabling of Government legislation and about the need fairly swiftly to adopt many of the solutions proposed in what is described as the Jopling package. I therefore hope that Ministers will consider that argument carefully to see whether that package can be implemented in agreement with the Opposition.
As the House knows, I took, part in yesterday's debate on the air passenger duty, which has some relevance to


what we are discussing. I was happy to support the Government, and I briefly explained why. I wanted to make a five-minute speech yesterday—that is what I had intended—but on checking the record I discovered that it lasted 13 minutes. The reason for that is germane to this debate, because, in what I had intended to be a five-minute speech, I felt it necessary and polite to take five interventions from Labour Members, which lengthened the speech from five minutes. That is but one example of the way in which Opposition Members were doing an operation.

Mr. Clive Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forman: I said that I would not give way, because I want to make progress.
Opposition Members are perfectly entitled to do such an operation, but it is important that the House, the country and anybody listening to the debate realise that Conservative Back Benchers took a disciplined approach to yesterday's debate. I believe that only three Conservative Back Benchers spoke. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General made two excellent speeches—one in opening the debate, in which he provided much essential information, and the second in winding up, in which he sought, with difficulty and against the clock, to answer some of the points that had been made. I make no criticism of the way in which Ministers performed their duties.
In general terms, it would be much better for the House to timetable its important legislation almost as a matter of course. That would have been sensible for this enormous Finance Bill, to whose length many hon. Members have referred. The arrangements proposed in the motion are, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, very generous. After all, it proposes 16 days and 32 sittings and, with well ordered debates, it should be perfectly possible to give all important aspects of the Bill serious consideration.
I would go further than that. I would support timetabling all Government Bills and it would make good sense to do so at an early stage of a Bill's passage. That would be better than the alternative suggested by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, when she said rather disingenuously that it is better to have waffle, filibuster and endless debate on minor points for hours and days—I have been involved in many such discussions—and to introduce a timetable later. It defies the purpose of a sensible timetable to introduce it later, because time is lost before it is introduced.
It would be much better for the quality of legislation, which concerns interests outside the House, and for the reputation of the House, if we timetabled all Government Bills, as has been proposed many times by Procedure Committees and others. If there is not sufficient political will in the House to do so, let us get back to sensible, grown-up working of the usual channels and see whether we can find ways, even at this late stage, of enabling the House to function more effectively. I hope that experience of recent events will contribute to a return to common sense, and that Opposition Members will grow up.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The Government have staggered on for quite a few months advancing vacuous arguments and offering feeble excuses, but they have reached new heights of feebleness and vacuity in relation to the two subjects that are relevant to this debate—justifying their tax position and this motion.
The Lord President advanced a series of arguments, if I can use that word, for the motion. His first was that the Labour party is deliberately obstructing the passage of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) dealt adequately with that. We want a vote on the extension of VAT before 1 April, so there is no way in which we shall obstruct the Bill beyond that point. That is perfectly clear to the Government, so they have not a shred of evidence that we intend to obstruct the Bill.
The Lord President went on to deal with the length of speeches last night, and complained about one hon. Member who spoke for 50 minutes. Many Opposition Members spoke for 10 or 15 minutes—I spoke for 10—and my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was singled out for criticism, but he had good reason to speak for 50 minutes, given the serious concerns of his constituents about the air passenger tax.
There is nothing unusual about hon. Members speaking for 50 minutes. Indeed, I wanted to speak in last Friday's debate on the Bank of England (Amendment) Bill, but was prevented from doing so by two Conservative Back Benchers, who spoke for more than an hour each. I did not make a point of order and say that deliberate filibusters were preventing me from speaking. We know that such things happen all the time, and many Conservative Members have good reasons for making long speeches.
That has long been respected in the House. I am told that, if we go back into history, we shall find that Members used to speak for longer than they do now. It is cant and hypocrisy for the Lord President to complain about one Member speaking for 50 minutes, when most of us were much briefer.
The next reason that the Lord President "advanced" was that it was wholly unreasonable for a debate to go beyond 10 pm. It takes some gall for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, given all the timetables he imposed on Maastricht, when debates went beyond 10 pm and 4 am, and when some even went beyond 10 am the next day. Everybody knows that the Government have timetabled many debates in the House to go beyond 10 o'clock.
It would seem perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to expect the debate to go beyond 10 pm when the usual three days for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House had been deliberately reduced to two by the Government. It was perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to expect a debate until 10 pm on the air passenger tax, and a debate thereafter on the insurance premium tax.
The final "argument" of the Lord President was that he is proposing the guillotine to protect the rights of poor, slighted Back Benchers. This was the most vacuous and feeble of his arguments, because what he is really saying is that he wants to allow time mainly for his own Back Benchers to discuss the insurance premium tax, the freezing of allowances and mortgage tax relief.
The motion allows Conservative and Labour Back Benchers and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and Ministers two hours to discuss those three matters. How


can the right hon. Gentleman possibly expect anyone to take seriously his argument that he is trying to protect the rights of Back Benchers? Everyone knows the reason for that guillotine. The fundamental reason is—as we realise if we also consider the previous two guillotines—that the Government do not want to discuss tax.
It is not surprising that the Government do not want to discuss tax, because whenever they do so they come out with a series of vacuous arguments and feeble excuses. The Government do not want the people of the country to be reminded by the Opposition that they lied at the general election. They do not want people to be reminded that we are debating in the Finance Bill the biggest tax hike in British tax history.
That is a cause of considerable embarrassment to the Government, so the less time that is spent in the House debating those matters, the happier the Government are. They can troop round the television studios, as they have done for the past two weeks, presenting their feeble excuses when the Opposition are not there to point them out, but they do not want to come to the House and present the series of feeble excuses that they have been using during the past two weeks.
There are various versions of those excuses. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer started them off, by presenting the idea that somehow those tax increases are the result of economic circumstances—some unfortunate accident that came on the Government, beyond their control. That is so obviously fallacious that it does not even require a reply.
The Prime Minister's excuse is that he did not know what the economic situation was at the time of the election; he could not possibly know that he was going to have that big Budget deficit. Yet The Sunday Times made it absolutely clear on Sunday that, if he did not know, he should have known because many experts told him before the 1992 election.
The Chief Secretary prefers to use what one might call the law that, at any time, a Conservative Government will tax less than a Labour Government. That is the type of mantra that the Chief Secretary has propagated. Yet that proposition is unprovable, mainly because it fails to take account of the economic situation at any one time, but also because it fails to take account of the fact that the Labour party would lax in a fairer way, and would change the balance of taxation.
As to the state of the economy, two thirds of the deficit is the result of unemployment—that is what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says—so the main reason for the high taxes imposed by the Government is the mess to which they have reduced the economy.
The next person in the Treasury Front-Bench team is the Financial Secretary, who, when I saw him interviewed on television, had given up any hope of trying to justify the tax position of the Government. Instead, he resorted to the argument, "Yes, people have to pay more taxation under the Government, but people's incomes have increased a lot since 1979, more than under Labour."
The simple reply to that is that the average increase in income between 1964 and 1979, a period when we had 11 years out of 15 of Labour government, was 10 per cent. greater than the average increase in income during the past 15 years. The other factor is that the income increases have been very uneven and unfair during the past 15 years. The Government's arguments therefore amount to nothing.
The final argument is one that all the Tory Back Benchers in chorus parrot at every Question Time: "But look at the rest of Europe. We are doing so much better than them, so all the Opposition's claims about economic incompetence cannot possibly be true." However, the snapshot view that they are suddenly trying to impose on us is one that they normally reject, for good reasons. It is impossible to consider an economic situation as a snapshot; it has to be considered throughout a period.
Let us take as an example a fairly reasonable period, from 1989—to be fair to the Government—when things were a bit better, to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman was going to relate this to the guillotine motion. May I gently remind him that we are dealing with the guillotine motion?

Mr. Chisholm: I am sorry about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the Government did not want to have to bring their excuses to the House, in debate, where we would have the chance to shoot down their arguments and expose their flaws. However, I will not pursue that route any further. Perhaps, when we debate the substance of the Bill later, I will be able to develop that argument.
It is not surprising that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not want to have the television cameras in the House. He does not want the people of the country to hear the arguments and the debate that is taking place here, especially about taxation. As he is unable to remove the television cameras from the House, he wants to remove the debate from the House.
Apart from the fundamental desire to curtail debate in the House, the other reason that has been clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South and others is that the Government do not want to have another debate and another vote on VAT. An amendment has been tabled by the Labour party, asking for a year's delay, and that could be renewable a year later. That position should be put to the vote, so that the people of the country realise that all the claims and all the false concern of the Conservative party about VAT amount to nothing, and that it is hiding behind the smokescreen and the illusion of the compensation package. I criticised and, I hope, exposed that package on Second Reading last week.
I will therefore vote against the guillotine motion, because it is an attempt by the Government to take control of the Bill, when it should be in the control of the House as a whole.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer to you the headline in tonight's Evening Standard: 
For God's sake give London the money: MPs plead for special status",
which purports to be a representation of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, published this morning, on standard spending assessments. There is no truth whatever in the story, and I am greatly concerned that my Committee's report should be misrepresented by a newspaper in that way. I wonder, therefore, whether I could ask you to rule whether the story in question should be further investigated by the House to find out how it is possible to take action to deal with such gross distortions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. John Biffen: This motion for a timetable motion has inevitably attracted a wider debate and entertained the House a great deal. However, I shall return to the core of our consideration, which is a timetable motion about the Budget, and which, because it is about the Budget, is of some sensitivity for the House.
I was encouraged, when listening to the debate, by the growing acceptance of the wider issue of some automatic —albeit liberal—timetable arrangements for most of the legislation which comes before us. The debate revealed an interesting difference of opinion between those who prefer control of the timetabling arrangements to remain in the hands of the usual channels and people who are more radical, such as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and myself, who believe that this should be an opportunity for the control of the timetabling arrangements to rest with a Committee of the House or with some organisation other than the usual channels.
I hope that, out of the reservations and unhappiness about timetabling which were expressed in the debate, those wider considerations are there for a more fruitful use at some future time.
I shall also reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the generally unsatisfactory state of our current affairs, which is characterised by the withdrawal of the usual facilities provided by the usual channels. Those delicate issues—those masonic mysteries—cannot easily be revealed to a wider public. That was shown this afternoon when, for a horrible moment, it looked as though the prospects of an agreed re-run of the debate about value added tax on fuel might be sensibly and reasonably canvassed before Madam Speaker herself. Quickly, the parties concerned adopted the posture of open disagreement, openly arrived at.
That is the unhappy situation in which we find ourselves and it is one in which there can be no prospect of a return to civilised conduct in this place, not for the sake of the convenience of hon. Members—not that that is a consideration to be disparaged—but for the full and effective operation of the House, for the drawing of a balance between Government and Opposition, between Front Bencher and Back Bencher and between the consideration of private Members' Bills and other legislation. All of that is part of the seamless robe that constitutes the usual channels and all of which, for one reason or another, has now fallen in desuetude. I shall say nothing about the factors that have given rise to this situation or, rather, I am not inclined to offer remedies but I should like to think I am speaking for many hon. Members who earnestly hope that something like street politics and rough common sense will break out.
Some believe that there are other motives behind the present situation. I agree that we mostly think of procedural disagreements having procedural change as an objective, but I accept at once that that has not always been the case. When the Labour Government were in office in 1950, the Conservative party engaged in the most vigorous harrying procedural tactics over the tabling of prayers. Folklore has it that it was material in securing the early demise of that Government. Certainly, that Government lasted no more than 18 months or so and their subsequent

defeat ushered in 13 glorious years of Conservative rule. However, I have no wish to raise the temperature or perhaps even falsify the accounts of today's situation.
Some people believe that the use of procedural devices can secure political ends, but I very much doubt it. If we go through this rigmarole until after the Euro-elections, Conservative morale may not crack—heaven knows, we can generate enough difficulties of our own without any assistance from the Opposition's strategists—but Parliament will suffer, our procedures will suffer, the quality of our legislation will suffer, and above all, our reputation will suffer and such suffering cannot easily be redeemed.

Ms Angela Eagle: I reacted with astonishment to the disgraceful and reprehensible performance by the Leader of the House in moving to guillotine the Bill last night barely five hours into the Committee stage. As has been said many times, the Bill is not the usual Budget Bill because of its great length and the fact that it covers the first unified Budget. We have not considered such a Bill before. In such circumstances, I should have thought that we would want to ensure that we had the maximum opportunity to scrutinise this complex, technical and very long Bill.
The feeble attempts to justify what I regard as a constitutional outrage and a gross affront to Parliament are even less convincing today than they were at 10 pm yesterday. The guillotine motion is an attempt by the Government to run away from another vote on value added tax. It is worth remembering that "Erskine May" deals specifically with the allocation of time motion, describing it as
the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure
which
may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House".
Yet all the legislation that we have discussed this Session has been guillotined—we seem to have a guillotine a week. There have been more guillotined debates on the Floor of the House than there have been debates on the content of legislation—that is the state to which the Leader of the House has brought us. "Erskine May" also states that guillotine motions are
capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance … between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
I believe that the Leader of the House's action in seeking to curtail debate after a mere five hours in Committee upsets that balance.
No one doubts that Finance Bills are crucial. They are central to any Government's political and economic programme and are therefore of the greatest political significance. They are at the very heart of the parliamentary battle between Government and Opposition. A Government who failed to get the Finance Bill through the House could not hope to survive without calling a general election. Likewise, only the House has a voice in determining what levies should be placed on the people. It is our duty to do that job.
It was the attempts by unelected Members in another place to disrupt and delay a Government with a popular mandate by denying them their Finance Bill at the turn of the century which led directly to the special arrangements that now operate in this place for the scrutiny of such


legislation. Neither the House of Lords nor the Sovereign can have any influence in these matters, which infinitely increases the duties imposed on us to do a proper job as we alone can scrutinise and amend the Bill. That makes the guillotining of a Finance Bill an especially unwelcome event and one which should not be undertaken merely for the greater comfort of the Government's business managers but only as a last resort in dire circumstances. I do not believe that the Leader of the House was in dire circumstances when he acted as he did last night.
The Government cannot argue that their precipitate rush to the guillotine procedure has any validity. To resort to a guillotine motion so quickly is, therefore, unforgivable and it is a complete abuse of the rights of Parliament, which should not be given away easily. In the sudden and disgraceful interruption of last night's proceedings, the Leader of the House quoted three examples of the guillotine being applied to Finance Bills, two under Labour. Governments and one under a Conservative Government. The first was in 1967, the second in 1975 and the third in the election year of 1992 when, admittedly, the election was already upon us so it could be argued that there were special circumstances. In other words, the Conservative party had to legislate quickly for their irresponsible pre-election bribe which subsequently knocked the economy off course in time for it to feature in their election campaign which, I seem to recall, it did.
Let us take a closer look at the two Labour precedents claimed by the Leader of the House as justification for his action. In 1968, the Finance Bill had already been discussed in Standing Committee for no fewer than 62 hours prior to the guillotine motion being moved. That Bill contained 56 clauses whereas this Bill contains 244. At that time, Finance Bills were certainly shorter, so in considering the fact that there had been 62 hours of debate in Standing Committee before the guillotine was imposed it is necessary to bear in mind that the average time spent debating Finance Bills in the period 1951 to 1964 was 64 hourso—only two hours short of the time already spent in consideration of that Bill. On this occasion, we had spent only five hours considering a much longer Bill in Committee prior to the guillotine motion being moved.
Even so, in 1968 the then Conservative Opposition were so outraged by the guillotine that the then hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds accused the Leader of the House, Lord Peart, of acting like a drawing room storm trooper. The attempt to guillotine the longest Finance Bill in history, which introduces the largest post-war tax hike, after only five hours in Committee and after consideration of only one of its 244 clauses and 23 schedules resembles a blitzkrieg rather than the antics of one paltry storm trooper. The shadow Leader of the House at that time, Edward du Cann, called the guillotine "shocking", "shameful" and "deplorable" and "intolerable". He said:
It raises a larger amount of taxation than any other Finance Bill."—[Official Report, 21 May 1968; Vol. 765, c. 438.]
That is also the case in this Bill. He went on to say that the guillotining of a Finance Bill was
a situation which we would never have countenanced…We would not betray the trust which people put in the elected representatives of the majority party"— [Official Report, 21 May 1968; Vol. 765, c. 439.] 
Perhaps he would not, but he is a Tory of the old school his—successors in the present discreditable Cabinet have, it seems, no such qualms. There is no betrayal of the

electorate that the Conservative party will not countenance to save their own skins and to close sensible discussion of their appalling Budget betrayals.
The only other precedent for guillotining a Finance Bill, on 4 March 1975, offers even less comfort to the Leader of the House in his vain attempts to defend his indefensible actions of last night. When the guillotine was moved, that Bill had already been considered in Standing Committee for 160 hours, not five hours, and was being deliberately filibustered by the respectable Lord Howe and the Conservative Opposition in an attempt to destroy a proposal to implement the capital transfer tax.
Hon. Members may recall that the capital transfer tax would have raised revenue from those who were already well off and would have affected a small minority of well-off people. Decidedly, it did not affect all taxpayers like the Government's current tax proposals. There was another difference between that tax proposal and the proposals that we were attempting to scrutinise in the Bill. The Labour Government signalled their intention to introduce the capital transfer tax in their 1974 election manifesto and subsequently obtained a mandate from the electorate to do so. In the current case, the Government were elected by conning the people and by claiming that they would cut taxes, not increase them. Nowhere in their manifesto did it say that there would be 12 new tax increases, three completely new taxes and the application of VAT to fuel and power. Indeed, in the election campaign the Prime Minister explicitly rejected all suggestions that he would do that. Tonight's circumstances are therefore different from those which prevailed in 1975.
We attempted to scrutinise the Bill, albeit for five hours only before we were so rudely interrupted last night, because it contained huge tax increases worth £12 a week for the average family. In 1975, the Conservative party deliberately filibustered for 160 hours to destroy a tax on the rich of which the electorate has been told and had approved. How can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in his speech to the Thatcherite Conservative "Way Forward" group earlier in the month, deplore
the new British disease, the self-destructive sickness of national cynicism
when his own Government treat Parliament and the electorate with such contempt? Instead of launching juvenile McCarthyite witch hunts about the new enemy within in an early bid for the succession, he should look to his own Government's behaviour for an explanation of the cynicism now abroad towards politicians. I can easily understand why people viewing the Government's disgraceful behaviour and their contempt for the public are turning to cynicism, which threatens our democratic institutions. Those cynical people have been made so by the disgraceful actions of a discredited Government.
We know the real reason behind the guillotine: it is a hidden agenda to prevent further discussion of VAT. The Government have been exposed as deceiving the public about their tax plans at the general election and as not being the party of low taxation. They are now running away from debates in Parliament on tax and closing down our opportunities to debate. That is why they imposed the guillotine. It has been a cynical and disgraceful effort.

Mr. Macdonald: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms Eagle: I am just finishing. The motion sets a precedent which the Government may live to regret and Labour Members will oppose it for the reasons that I have set out.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friends will know of my concern about the incessant use of the guillotine. That concern has been long-stated and I have tried to argue in —most such debates;six in recent years—that it seems increasingly to have become an instrument of executive Government to control and manage the House. That is a matter of concern for us all because I recognise that, in the course of my life, it has not only been one-party government. Governments have alternated from side to side across the House. I see no reason why that bold tradition of the British people called democracy will not continue.
The arguments adduced by Conservative Members some 60 times since I have been in the House will, no doubt, be used against me at some later time should the Opposition become the Government.
It was not just the issue of the guillotine that I wanted to address. The motion touches on something to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) also referred—the withdrawal of the usual channels. It was not a seamless garment. At times I have thought of it more as a shroud under which we concealed and buried the vitality of the House. Reasonable people across the House may think that it is so intolerable that we cannot reach arrangements, that whatever the Executive bring forward is better than having no discussion or co-operation.
Any Member of the House can bring proceedings to a halt. We know that. I tried to advocate it during the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. One could have objected to almost every non-debatable motion and brought the business to an end. Wisdom, in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, advised me that I may alienate the House and that by frustrating the purposes of House I was not serving my own argument well. In that lies the resolution of such matters, to which the Opposition must address themselves. Do they really want to drive the Government into taking measures that I shall find loathsome, which many hon. Members will find distasteful, and which will so control the debates of the House as to affect the function which we serve? It is tolerance that makes the House work. We are 651 people with passions and beliefs. Why else did we enter into politics? We have an understanding of what we want for our country. If there is no co-operation in the management of business, we shall break the thing that is the only legitimate expression of the wishes and passions of our people, however poor that expression may be in the eyes of the people of country.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is more used to being abused by me. I would like to kick him and I do kick him because this is such a comprehensive motion. Should we give up to the Executive, through the Committee of Selection, the absolute determination of how we manage the House of Commons and the future legislation of this country? That must be wrong and it was not our purpose.
I would like to take issue with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on one point. There is a notion that runs around the Benches of the House—it is not one that I share and not one for which I can find a constitutional basis—that the Government must have their business. I have never heard of such a constitutional notion. It never arose in the House before. The only thing that the Government should have is the finance. With that, they can manage the country. That does not mean that I came here to support every jot of nonsense or every original idea and fantasy of a temporary member of the Executive who flitted through the House and perhaps took a job merely as an item on his curriculum vitae for a City position. I want and expect, as do the electorate of Aldridge-Brownhills and of the west midlands, hon. Members to look cautiously at every ambitious engagement of a Minister of the Crown. That is our function. I understand the anger of the Opposition Front-Bench Members at the motions tabled before Christmas. I hope that I expressed the views of many Conservatives about the way in which that business was conducted. Without tolerance and without understanding of the purpose of the House, the feud between Opposition Front-Bench Members and the Government will break that purpose.
Let us have a cheer for what we are. Let us really get together. I cannot believe that it serves the interests of Labour Front-Bench Members—I accept that it is not for me to judge those interests—to conduct matters in this way. The Opposition's attitude was clearly set out by the deputy leader of the Labour party when she was asked what she wanted and what was the point at which we could engage or re-engage in proper business. There was no answer; there is no answer from Opposition Front-Bench Members at the moment. Is it a great political engagement? Is this the means by which they believe that they can bring down the Government? I tell Labour Front-Bench Members this. There is a resolution among Conservative Members which will not permit the Government to be brought down in that way. The Government will be brought down, if they are ever brought down, by the British people voting in an election; that is the way in which it will be done.
I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members will consider what they are doing in their attempt to break the Government. They will break the House of Commons and they will see, introduced and supported by Conservative Members, measures that cannot be in the interest of themselves, of the Government or of the country at large.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: If, as a result of the present impasse, the interregnum and the breaking of the usual channels, there is a revolution in this place, and if we then take a fundamental look at the way in which we act on behalf of our constituents, I for one will say that that is a good day's work. Having switched off co-operation, there must be a legitimate reason to switch it back on. The Government must take that point on board.
I am not party to the discussions, so I do not want to go down the highways and byways, but I have described the political reality. Some of my constituents have said to me in the past couple of weeks,"Haven't you been opposing for the past 15 years, Jeff?" I say,"Yes, within the rules and procedures, archaic though they are, understood by few outside and not understood by everyone in the House."
I have come to the conclusion that our ability to scrutinise and to do a decent day's work on legislation on behalf of our constituents has diminished over the years.
I have been in Committee, both as a Front Bencher and as a Back Bencher, to do a serious job. Sometimes the Opposition have known the date by which they wanted to finish. It may have been part of the game plan to create a logjam later in the summer on matters totally unrelated to the legislation with which we were dealing. We wasted hour after hour. We missed debates on many key points; I do not deny that. We were forced into those circumstances because of the culture of this place, which is passed from one generation to another. No one says,"Stop. Why are we doing things in this way. Why do we have these Standing Orders? Is this the best way in which to promote and to scrutinise legislation?" We have never said, "Let us stop and have a look." If the interregnum provides that opportunity, it will be a good day's work.
The motion shows how quick the Government are to respond in the traditional way. If on the day set aside for Report there happens to be a delay in starting—an emergency debate, for example—there is injury time. However, there is no attempt to table a manuscript amendment to give us injury time of an hour and a half today, although time was legitimately taken up on the privilege motion.
What on earth was the House of Commons doing spending an hour and a half from 3.30 pm debating the archaic rule that the Chairman of a Standing Committee does not have the right to turf out someone who should not be in the Committee? Why did not the Leader of the House say,"Here is the new model Standing Order to stop that nonsense ever again taking up time on the Floor of the House"? That would be sensible, but nobody seems to follow through those issues. We are offered no injury time today even with the privilege motion. The Government could not have known about the privilege motion last night, but they could have made provision for injury time.
The Government's business was known about. There were to be three key debates on insurance, on the freezing of tax allowances—creating 400,000 more low-paid taxpayers—and on mortgage tax relief. I did not come to speak on the guillotine motion; I have not sought over the years to speak on such motions. There are good and bad reasons for guillotines. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) did an admirable job demolishing the Government's case on the 1975 Finance Bill. That Finance Bill did not follow a Budget and it is wrong to use it as an example in the generality of arguments about why this guillotine has had to be introduced. It was not an ordinary Finance Bill. The Budget followed it and there was then a Finance (No. 2) Bill to put into legislation the Chancellor's Budget resolutions and the Ways and Means resolutions.
We are offered three hours to debate the guillotine. This House follows Parkinson's law; if there is time available, it will be filled. The Opposition and the Government have sometimes sought for the convenience of everyone—the business—to say, "This does not need to go until 10 pm; it can be wrapped up earlier." The Whips say, "We can't have that. We have sent them away until 10 pm. They will not be back here to vote." It is beyond belief that we do not have the flexibility in our own procedures to come to a conclusion earlier on an issue. I make no complaint. The Leader of the House knows that the full three hours will be taken on a guillotine motion.

Mr. Newton: The previous guillotine that I moved applied to the Non-Domestic Rating Bill. The full three hours was not taken and, what is more, the Opposition could not fill the time for which the guillotine provided.

Mr. Rooker: That is a point of criticism. We are at fault if we do not fill all three hours. Yet I and my hon. Friends will be criticised if we take the full three hours to complain about the chopping down of debate. We shall be told that we have deprived ourselves of the opportunity to discuss the issues.
I did not originally come here to speak on the guillotine debate. I came because I wanted to make a brief speech on clause 72 and on the amendments. The clause concerns personal allowances and I wanted to make the point, at greater length than was possible on Second Reading, that the Government are creating 615 extra low-paid taxpayers in every constituency. That is the reality. I wanted to make that point at some length.
As I said on Second Reading, 13 Conservative Members have majorities of under 600 and there are 24 with majorities of under 1,200. They have a vested interest in knowing about clause 72. The new taxpayers will make the connection between the rows over the Budget, the rows over the withdrawal of co-operation in running the House and the fact that they are paying tax for the first time. The new taxpayers will be low-paid people because clause 72 will apply only to people earning between £60 and £70 a week. I shall be deprived of the opportunity to develop that point at length because of the guillotine motion.
There are three issues for debate. If we had an hour on each and then a vote—we would need to push the matter to a vote to register our protests effectively—we should have a total of three and three quarter hours. There will be two votes at the end of this debate because we shall also vote on the amendment which proposes that we should be able to debate the Bill until midnight. If that is carried, we shall have the extra two hours. I hope that we shall vote for that.
If I had had the opportunity to do so, I would have referred in complimentary terms to the Leader of the House. Perhaps we should not keep these files, but I dug out some debates from 1977 on the Finance Bill. There were some excellent speeches by the right hon. Gentleman about the need to raise income tax allowances and thresholds to protect people who were on the margin of paying tax. In those days he was an ally of mine and of my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), and he had some valuable things to say. Time has passed since then, and as the Government have now seen fit to renege on raising tax allowances two Budgets running, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman deserved to be reminded of that time.
The motion will also deprive us of the opportunity to discuss not only the extra tax on the low paid but the reduction in tax relief for the millions of people with mortgages. We shall not reach that debate. Those people will get less tax relief and will have to pay more for their mortgages, but Parliament will not have debated the issue, because of the guillotine motion, which gives no opportunity for hon. Members on either side of the House to deploy the case for or against.
Moreover, the motion gives no opportunity for those of us who argue, as I do, in favour of raising thresholds, to explain where the money might come from. When we argue for what is in effect a tax decrease, it behoves us to


discuss where the money might be found to fund it. The Government have to balance the books and meet the £50 billion deficit that they have caused.
Under the rules of the House, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, neither Opposition nor Government Back Benchers can table amendments to raise taxes on individuals. We can table only amendments that would decrease taxes. That is why we need the opportunity of debate, not merely the opportunity to table amendments for the record. We need to be able to say that, although we ask for a tax reduction in one area, on balance there could be a tax increase somewhere else. As I said last week, one example would be an increase in tobacco tax—there is no disagreement between the parties about that. Hon. Members should not be deprived of the opportunity to debate such ideas.
If the draconian guillotine motion had not been introduced I would have wanted the chance to update some figures that I gave at the end of my speech on Second Reading. I was talking about the burden on the lowest fifth of income earners over the past decade, compared with that on the other four fifths of income earners, and I cited what were then the latest figures available—"Social Trends" for 1993, which the Government published a year ago. Since Second Reading the latest, 1994, edition of "Social Trends" has been published.
If I had had the opportunity I would have updated my statistics, although not in great detail, and explained what happened to the figures when the extra year since 1979 was added on. Of course, I cannot do that now, but it shows that by 1990–91, in real terms, the bottom fifth of income earners had had a 3 per cent. reduction in their median real income after housing expenses. Meanwhile, the next fifth of income earners had had a 12 per cent. increase, the middle fifth a 25 per cent. increase, and the next fifth a 34 per cent. increase. Finally, you will be astonished to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, between 1979 and 1990–91 the top fifth of income earners had a 49 per cent. increase in their real median income after housing costs had been taken into account.
I would have used the argument of fairness and said that some of the money to pay for the increase in tax thresholds, to relieve the burden on the low paid, could be found by taking a couple of per cent. off that 49 per cent. increase for the highest-paid one fifth of the population. I make no bones about that. The cake is there and the Government have set the size of it. I cannot make it grow, but I want to be positive rather than negative.
It is outrageous that both Opposition and Conservative Members have been deprived of the opportunity of speaking in those three key debates. We may manage to discuss the insurance premium tax, but, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that will take all the time until 10 o'clock. There can be no argument about that, because it is an important brand-new tax that deserves to be debated in the House.
I do not want to take all the rest of the time available, and there are only a few minutes left for the debate on this squalid guillotine motion. Last week, to the annoyance of Conservative Members, I made a point that I shall make again now, because it cannot be repeated often enough. The Government have a mandate in this place because they have more than half the votes here, but they have no

mandate from the British public for such measures. They received the support of only one third of the total electorate in 1992; that is all that they got. With all their promises—their lies, as it turned out—they still managed to secure the support of only one third of the electorate. Translated into a percentage of those who could be bothered to go out and vote, that is still only 42 per cent.
The Government can claim no democratic legitimacy for the biggest tax hike in history. They cannot claim support at the ballot box. They can come to the House and try to shut us up and stop us talking about it, but if there is any justice, if the Leader of the House wanted to hold out an olive branch—it would behove the Government to do that, because they created the conditions for the present impasse, with their two Bills before Christmas—there are things that he could do to ameliorate the situation.
For example, the right hon. Gentleman could put the Opposition on the spot. He could meet the legitimate demands that he has heard for the past three hours to make possible a vote on VAT on fuel on the Floor of the House before 1 April. We would move heaven and earth to create those circumstances. We would not argue about time, or delay whatever business happened to be in front of us. It is not up to me, and I have no idea about the discussions, but if it were up to me I should be willing to give up an Opposition day for the Government to use for that purpose.
The Opposition cannot use Opposition days or Adjournment debates to change the law. People outside the House must understand that. It is not within the power of the Opposition to say, "It is our debate, so we shall decide what to do." Under the rules of the House we cannot do that, but the Government could, with our co-operation. That would earn some brownie points for the Government and I hope that the gesture would be reciprocated, because we are dealing with a key demand.
I believe that my hon. Friends are signalling to me to shut up because I have lost track of how much time is left. I shall gladly walk into the Lobby to vote against this unfair motion. The Government could have taken a more reasonable position, because they knew what the demands of the Opposition were, even though we are not operating through the usual channels. However, it is not too late. It would not be too late, even after the motion were passed, if the Government wanted to bring it back and amend it so that the Bill could be dealt with differently. We would not then come up against the impasse. But the Opposition will have even more reason to pursue our legitimate arguments against the Government if we see that they are not prepared to be reasonable on this matter.

Ms Harriet Harman: I welcome the opportunity to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
Let us be clear what the debate is about: it is about a Government running scared, a Government who have broken their promises and who are now attempting to stifle debate. A Government who have lost all the arguments will do anything to avoid losing the vote. A Government who have trodden all over the people of Britain are now treading all over the House of Commons.
The guillotine motion marks a new low even by the Government's standards, because for the first time in history a Government are guillotining a Finance Bill before


it has even gone into Standing Committee. For the first time in the history of the House a guillotine has been imposed when only one clause of the Finance Bill has been debated.
We should make no mistake about it: the timetable motion is a carefully planned cynical exercise designed to give the Government absolute control over the debates and the timing of votes on the Bill.
This guillotine has two simple objectives: to prevent the House from having the chance to vote down value added tax on gas and electricity before it comes into force on 1 April, and to close down the debate on tax increases. The Tories are running scared. They are scared of the people; they are scared of debate in this House; and they are scared of some of their own Back Benchers. They are scared of the people of this country because people are angry at the Government for putting up their taxes and at the unfairness of the Tory tax increases. People are angry that the Government have broken all of their promises.
The Government are scared of debate in this House because they have lost all the arguments. They have lost the arguments on taxes; they have lost the arguments on the economy; and they have lost the arguments on public services. They are scared of their own Back Benchers because they know that some fearful Tory Back Benchers have privately promised their constituents that, if only there was an opportunity, of course they would vote against VAT.
Labour has tabled a new clause which would delay the VAT on gas and electricity coming into effect for one year. But the Government's purpose in this timetable motion is to delay any debate on VAT or on our new clause until after 1 April when VAT would already be in force. The Leader of the House shakes his head. I challenge him to intervene in my speech and to put the record straight. He could take this opportunity to deny that if it is net true.
What we are saying to the House and to the country is that this squalid guillotine motion is an attempt by the Government to paper over the cracks in their ranks and to prevent their Back Benchers from having to make a choice on VAT.

Mr. Newton: If it is of any interest to the hon. Lady, may I say that what she has just said is flatly, totally and completely untrue. What is more, there are Labour Members who know that to be the case.

Ms Harman: We seem to be making some progress. Can the Leader of the House say on what occasion we will have the opportunity to discuss the new clause before 1 April?

Mr. Newton: I am not saying that that opportunity will arise. The hon. Lady suggested that the purpose of this motion was as she described it. That is untrue. We went into yesterday's debate in the expectation that some contacts that had taken place would bring about a position in which the Bill would proceed in a different way by agreement. By this time yesterday evening, that expectation had been destroyed by the opposition of Labour Members.

Ms Harman: It is absolutely clear, and the Leader of the House has given us all the evidence we need in his intervention, that the purpose of the guillotine motion is to prevent Tory Back Benchers from having the opportunity to vote against VAT on gas and electricity.
The Government know that they have lost the debate in the country and in their party. They now take the only course left open to them—they seek to control and manipulate the debate in Parliament. They seek to prevent their own Back Benchers from voting on VAT. They seek to spare Tory Members from having to make what they find to be a difficult choice on VAT. The choice should be obvious—honouring the promises that they made to their constituents, or following the orders of their Whips.
We are determined to ensure that Tory Members have the opportunity to make that choice. We want to ensure that they have another chance to join us and delay the imposition of VAT—a chance to honour the promises that they made to their constituents and the pledges that the Prime Minister made to the country on their behalf. Tory Members who tell us that they also want the chance to vote against VAT on gas and electricity should vote against this timetable motion if they want that chance.
This guillotine motion seeks to deprive a Committee of the whole House of the chance to engage in full debate about three Tory tax increases—tax increases which are all clear breaches of election pledges. The new insurance premium tax is a tax on the victims of crime. It hits hardest at ordinary people and their families—those who are already paying the price for the Government's failure on law and order. They must pay it again with this new tax. What is more, as with all Tory taxes, it is unfair. It hits hardest those who can least afford it. People who live in less prosperous areas already pay up to seven times more in insurance premiums to protect their homes than people in better areas. This tax will hit people living in the inner city areas of Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and London up to seven times harder than those living in more affluent areas.
Both the insurance tax and the airport tax are the thin end of the tax wedge—introduced at a relatively low rate and then jacked up to pay not for new hospitals, schools or railways but the constant bills of unemployment and low growth.
It is a bit disingenuous for the Leader of the House to say that all the Government want is a reasonable debate on the Finance Bill because when the Chief Secretary introduced the Bill he did not even mention the insurance tax and the airport tax. So keen is he to debate the Bill that he could not even get the words "airport tax" and "insurance tax" past his lips. Perhaps he will manage to refer to them tonight and explain how the Government have come to break their promises.
Perhaps the truth is that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) was more prophetic than he realised when he wrote in his election address to the people of Dudley, West:
Tax is the dirtiest word to the Conservative philosophy
It certainly is such a dirty word now that Tory Ministers who are putting up taxes do not even want to discuss it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr mentioned, the Government are also stifling debate on the freeze on personal allowances. Of course, this is a tax increase which hits hardest at the low paid. In response to questions from my hon. Friend, the Government have been forced to admit that it will drag an extra 400,000 low-paid people into the tax net. No wonder they do not want to discuss it—no wonder they wanted to squeeze the debate. They are also stifling debate on the cuts in mortgage interest tax relief, which amount to the equivalent of nearly


2p on the basic rate of income tax for a typical family with a mortgage. No wonder the Government do not want to discuss it. In their manifesto, they promised the electorate:
We will maintain mortgage tax relief.
Of course, it was only after the election that the Chancellor said with a snigger:
Luckily we didn't say at what rate".
The promise of tax cuts was made by the Government to the country and by Tory Members to their constituencies. These tax increases break those promises. Faced with their betrayal, the Government try to hide from debate. They try to force these tax increases through with only a one-hour debate. Labour's tax in the face of that contempt for democracy becomes even more important. Not only must the economy be rebuilt and the community and publice services restored. We must rebuild the confidence of the British people in democracy—the confidence that the Tory Government have destroyed.
The Government are in office but not in power. Despite holding the great offices of state, they are powerless. They cannot use the power of their officers to keep their election promises, so they shut down debate. They cannot run the economy, so they shut down debate. The one thing that they have not lacked is money. They have squandered £130 billion in North sea oil revenues and privatisation receipts. Having squandered all that money, they are now dipping into the pay packets of ordinary families. They cannot command the respect of the British people, so they stifle debate.
There is only one thing that the Government are good at any more, and that is guillotine motions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was absolutely right: this is the fourth Bill in four parliamentary weeks that the Government have guillotined. Although they can shut down the debate in this House, they cannot shut down the debate in the country. This gagging motion is the last refuge for a Government who have lost every argument and broken every promise. This Tory Government are nothing more than a rabble—a rabble without a cause. We will vote against the guillotine tonight.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasu (Mr. Michael Portillo): My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House began the debate sombrely enough by saying that the Government entered into this guillotine motion with no pleasure and no cheer. During this debate, the genuine concern felt throughout the House at the present state of affairs—the breakdown of normal communications between the two parties—was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), my right hon. Friends the Members for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). That concern was also expressed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and, to a certain degree, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
In seeking some agreement across the House, I begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that this is a big and serious Bill, as the Finance Bill always is. That means that the Bill could only proceed through the

House on one of two bases—agreement between the parties, or by guillotine. I would have much preferred that there should be agreement.
It is important that the House considers the Bill in a serious and methodical way, partly because that will enhance the reputation of the House—it is the job of the House so to do—but also because it is important that outside interests are given the reassurance that the matters will be considered seriously. Those outside interests must be given time to make their representations.
I wrote to the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) to suggest that we reach agreement, and I was rebuffed in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House described. I struggled to cope with that disappointment, but I wrote again to the hon. Lady to inform her of the way in which we then intended to proceed, both on the Floor of the House in Committee and in Committee upstairs. We proposed that we should take four clauses on the Floor of the House over two days.
There was every expectation that the Opposition might stick to that. Indeed, we began well with the small number of hon. Members who came to the House yesterday afternoon apparently wishing to address issues seriously before the House. However, at about 6 o'clock yesterday afternoon, there was a clear change of mood—I would say a clear change of control—in the Labour party. A new squad of people entered the House who had not been here at the beginning of the debate. That group of people apparently were uninterested at 4 o'clock, but by 6 o'clock they had become interested to the point of verbosity.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) showed in her opening remarks that she was not interested in what I believe the House and the Government are interested in—providing time upstairs for serious consideration of the Bill, and for outside interests to make their points known. The right hon. Lady has become obsessed with getting time on the Floor of the House to consider VAT.
First, the right hon. Lady was offered precisely that in discussions which we thought we were having with the Labour party. We very much hoped that we could reach some agreement, and she said that she wanted to reach an agreement. For all I know, the right hon. Lady did want to reach that agreement. The divisions in the Labour party today are so severe, so arcane and so deep that it is perfectly possible that the right hon. Lady is being sincere.
The right hon. Lady was then in the extraordinary position of having to argue—I think this argument was being made by an Opposition for the first time in history —that the fault of the guillotine motion was that it was giving too much time to the Committee upstairs. Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady failed to tip off the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who went on saying that the problem was that the guillotine gave too little time to consider a Bill that was too long.
The right hon. Lady said that we should have trusted her. How could we possibly have done so? She was not talking to us and, like a petulant teenager who is not talking to his parents, she then complained that we not been able to reach agreement between the channels.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not remember saying any such thing, but I do remember vividly that, on at least four or five occasions during the debate, the Government have been told that the Opposition certainly wanted the timing


of the Committee to be controlled. After all, it is a matter of the distribution of time, not just a matter of the number of weeks.
We are nervous about how the Government will seek to control the time. They have had repeated offers to accept that we want Report and a vote on VAT in the House before Easter. 'That point was put to the Government no fewer than four or five times during the debate. The Chief Secretary can accept it now, as he has singularly failed to do on every occasion when it has been mentioned before.

Mr. Portillo: Another point which was put to the Government was that the Opposition would proceed in a normal way during yesterday's debate, which they did not. Everyone in the House saw what happened at 6 o'clock yesterday.
I remind the right hon. Lady that, despite what she says she said to us, the hon. Member for Peckham said in a press notice on 10 January:
Labour will be fighting every step of the way".
The hon. Lady was then quoted in The Times on 12 January:
Labour will be making no agreements with the Government about the timetabling of the Finance Bill, as part of our policy of non-cooperation.
I remind the House also that the hon. Lady wrote to me on 21 January:
As you rightly say, the Opposition is not willing to enter into informal discussions this year.
All that gives the lie to what the right hon. Member for Derby, South has been saying.
The right hon. Lady, when intervened upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, let out a lament that there were no usual channels. Whose fault is it but the Labour party's?
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire wanted us to accept his amendment. I am not able to do that, and I say that also to the hon. Member for Perry Barr. It is not the Government's fault that three hours have been devoted to the guillotine today, because that is not what we intended. It has been the choice of the House this afternoon to devote three hours to debating the guillotine.
The Government had allowed 10 to 12 hours for debate on four clauses on the Floor of the House, and that was a perfectly reasonable amount of time. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire went further, and said that a more comprehensive solution was needed to our problems. The attitude of the Government has been that we wish to continue to act in a normal way, and we wish to see normal relations restored across the House.
Nonetheless, I noted with great interest what the hon. Gentleman said, and I know that he meant it in a spirit of co-operation. The hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter is genuine, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard it. Our attitude has always been that we wish to proceed with normal arrangements as much as we possibly can.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said that he hoped that we could return to street politics and rough common sense, and that those could again break out. I heard the interesting speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. I repeat that we took no pleasure in tabling the guillotine motion. An arrangement on the Bill was very much to be preferred. We have the independent testimony of the hon. Member for Roxburgh

and Berwickshire, who has recognised that the situation has been forced upon the Government for the protection of Back Benchers.
It is the duty of the Government to make sure that the Bill is considered in detail. It is our duty to the outside interests to make sure that they have time to make their representations. I believe that it is for the convenience and reputation of the House that this Finance Bill should be considered in an orderly way. We would much prefer to have done otherwise, but, given the situation, the Government have no choice. The Government must protect the House, protect business and protect those people outside who depend upon us, by moving the motion today.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 288.

Division No. 97]
[8.7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Coe, Sebastian


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan, Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunn, Bob


Body, Sir Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Booth, Hartley
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowis, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Bright, Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fishburn, Dudley


Budgen, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butterfill, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Fry, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Gallie, Phil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Churchill, Mr
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gill, Christopher


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gillan, Cheryl






Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Milligan, Stephen


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Sir Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stephen, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter





Sykes, John
Ward, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, John M.(Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thomason, Roy
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Willetts, David


Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Waller, Gary





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Austin-Walker, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dafis, Cynog


Barnes, Harry
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Denham, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dixon, Don


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Betts, Clive
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blunkett, David
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Enright, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Faulds, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Burden, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Garrett, John


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Coffey, Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Connarty, Michael
Gould, Bryan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Graham, Thomas






Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gunnell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morley, Elliot


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Rt Hon A.(Wy'nshawe)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Heppell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prescott, John


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Janner, Greville
Purchase, Ken


Johnston, Sir Russell
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rendel, David


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jowell, Tessa
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Keen, Alan
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruddock, Joan


Leigh ton, Ron
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Simpson, Alan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Spellar, John


Maclennan, Robert
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McMaster, Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stevenson, George


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Stott, Roger


Maginnis, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mahon, Alice
Straw, Jack


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tipping, Paddy


Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)
Trimble, David


Martlew, Eric
Tyler, Paul


Maxton, John
Vaz, Keith





Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wilson, Brian


Wallace, James
Winnick, David


Walley, Joan
Wise, Audrey


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N
Wray, Jimmy


Watson, Mike
Wright, Dr Tony


Welsh, Andrew
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wicks, Malcolm



Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Orders of the Day — Committee of the Whole House

1.—(1) The Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(2) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) shall not apply.

(3).Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

Orders of the Day — Standing Committee

2.—(1)The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 29th March.

(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 29th March may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 30th March.

Orders of the Day — Report and Third Reading

3.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.

(2) On the first of those days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall, notwithstanding subparagraph (a) of that paragraph, apply to the proceedings on the Bill for only one hour after Ten o'clock.

(3) The proceedings on Third Reading may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the proceedings on consideration, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on ways and means resolutions

Orders of the Day — Business Committee

4.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 14th April.

(3) Any Resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 80, whether before or after 14th April and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.

(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Orders of the Day — Procedure in Standing Committee

5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the


Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Orders of the Day — Report of proceedings in Committee

6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.

Orders of the Day — Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Extra time

8.—(1) On the first of the allotted days mentioned in paragraph 3, any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period of one hour mentioned in paragraph 3(2).

(2) If that allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to the period of one hour.

Orders of the Day — Private business

9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Orders of the Day — Procedure at time for conclusion of proceedings

10. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause of Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

11.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 10 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20

(Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day — Supplemental orders

12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Saving

13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Orders of the Day — Recommittal

14.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Orders of the Day — Interpretation

15. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
the Bill" means the Finance Bill;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill

(Clauses 28, 46, 72 and 77)

Considered in Committee [Progress, 31 January]

[MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

Clause 46

INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX

Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 32, line 4, after "(1)", insert—
Subject to subsection (3) below.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in page 32, line 7, at end, add—
(3) This tax shall not be charged until the Government has presented a report to Parliament on its effects on policyholders, the extent of insurance cover and the future of the insurance industry.

Mr. Darling: I shall now deliver the speech that I would have delivered last night shortly after 10 o'clock had the Government not stopped me doing so. My speech will be of exactly the same length as it would have been last night, which would have enabled the House to consider the clause in the detail and time required, before the Government decided that they wanted to stifle debate on yet another new tax.
The amendments seek to delay the imposition of the tax until a report has set out the effects on not just the industry but the public who will be expected to pay it. On Second Reading last week, the Chief Secretary told us that his instincts were against high taxation, yet this is the second new tax that we are debating in the Bill. It is not surprising that the Government did not want much discussion on it and attempted to stifle debate by using the guillotine. Once again, what they say and what they do are entirely different. The Chief Secretary mentioned in his speech neither this new tax nor the other new taxes.
The insurance tax is a tax on victims and will affect 16·5 million households. It is yet another "double whammy", an expression that the Conservatives will remember from the last election. People will be robbed by a villain in the street and robbed again by the Chancellor in Downing street. The tax is, effectively, VAT on insurance and will be paid by 85 per cent. of all households. In the next financial year, it will raise £295 million; in the following year it will raise £775 million; and, the year after, it will raise a staggering £840 million if people continue to insure their properties properly. I say that because there is a substantial risk that the imposition of this tax will tempt too many people to underinsure their risks or not insure them at all.
The new tax illustrates a philosophic point on which it will be interesting to hear the Government's view. As a matter of public policy, we should encourage people to insure not just their houses and cars but many other risks. The tax is unavoidable. It is socially necessary and economically desirable that one should not be able to get

out of insuring one's car, especially for third party liability, or one's house, whether it is for the building or contents. So, once again, the Government tax it.
Given that the average car insurance premium is about£340 and the average house contents premium about £300, most households have an outlay of between£ 600 and£ 1,000 a year—sometimes more—depending on the risks that they must insure. That is a substantial and unavoidable commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said in her closing speech in the previous debate, insurance premiums are much higher in the inner city areas of Liverpool, London, Manchester, Glasgow and many other cities than they are elsewhere, and the annual insurance commitment can be as high as £1,500 or even £2,000 a year.
The Government said that the tax would cost 35p a week. As usual, they are wildly out. Many people consider that a minimum of 70p a week will have to be found by people who are already hard pressed because of other taxes imposed by the Government. So the insurance tax will be paid by people who are already stretched. Victims of crime pay more for their insurance and will therefore pay more in tax.
People can do nothing to avoid paying the tax if, through no fault of their own, they live in an area that is particularly prone to crime. In many areas of England and Wales, the crime rate is rising dramatically and the most vulnerable people in society will be hit by a tax which they can do nothing to avoid. Unemployed people must still insure their house, so people with little at their disposal will be hit in a way that income tax would not hit them, because income tax depends on the amount of money that people have, not simply on the fact that they happen to exist.
People are already badly hit by other taxes. They are paying VAT on fuel, increases in income tax, and will be faced with reductions in mortgage tax relief, yet the Government do not want us to discuss any of the new taxes and have only reluctantly allowed enough time to discuss this new insurance tax. People now pay more tax than they ever paid under the last Labour Government, but the crucial point is that they are getting nothing for it because the increased taxes will pay off debts that the Government ran up. A report is necessary to assess the effects on the industry and the people who pay the tax.
.
The point of principle is whether insurance should be taxed at all. Tax will be paid on general insurance—buildings, vehicles, holidays and so on. Surely we should encourage people to insure themselves when they go on holiday because many countries have no national health service or anything like it. Even in some advanced countries, if one is run over in the street, the first thing that the ambulance driver asks is how one proposes to pay for the treatment. Now, people will be tempted to cut down on holiday insurance because of the tax.
I welcome the fact that no tax will be imposed on long-term contracts, but for how long will long-term contracts of insurance be exempt? Is it only a matter of time, as with the provision for VAT, before the scope of the tax is extended to cover long-term insurance contracts for pensions, life assurance and so on? Will the Government clarify that issue? I suspect not. The 3 per cent. rate will be just the beginning. Having introduced the principle, it will not be long before the Government increase the tax to 4, 5 and 6 per cent. It is no coincidence that the tax will be


collected by the VAT man and, in time, the Government will be tempted steadily to increase the tax from 3 per cent. to 17·5 per cent., or whatever is the prevailing VAT rate.
The issue of the long-term insurance rate is important. The Government must make their intentions clear on a point of political philosophy. I understand that private health care insurance will be caught by the tax but that, not surprisingly, the industry is already clamouring for an exemption. I want to hear a clear commitment from the Paymaster General that the Government will not give in to the clamour from an industry whose whole future is perilled on the failure of the national health service, and will not give a tax exemption to private health care insurance. In addition, I want a commitment that they will close the loopholes that currently exist within the legislation so that private health care companies cannot get around the insurance tax by changing the way in which they write their policies.
8.30 pm
In the Financial Times on 12 January, Mr. Julian Ross, a product development manager with Prime Health, a specialist medical insurer, said;
If the whole philosophy and policy of this government is to make people more self-reliant, it seems rather stupid to penalise them for taking out private medical insurance.
Most people want to be self-reliant, but they do not want to rely on private health insurance. They want to rely on a national health service that is there to meet their needs. That is a fundamental philosophical difference between the Opposition and the Government who have never believed in the NHS. It is clear from the way in which they look after the health service and their general approach to such matters that they are deeply sympathetic to private health insurance which depends for its existence on the NHS being unable to fulfil its obligations. Nobody would go private if they did not have to.
I want the Government to tell us tonight that they will not allow the private health insurance industry to get the tax break it is seeking. We want to hear that, if private health care insurance is caught by the tax, it will remain caught and that the loophole that might be provided by schedule 1 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 will not be used to allow companies to write their policies in such a way as to bring themselves within its protection. That protection is generally accepted in cases such as that of a company director who insures himself against catastrophic illness; if there were no insurance, there might be disastrous consequences for the individual, the company, and its employees.
The Government must make it clear that they will have no truck with further tax breaks for private health care insurance. Every penny saved by the private health care industry will have to be paid for by those who insure their houses or their cars. If the Government give in to the industry, which has a ready ear in the Treasury, they will pay a heavy political price.
People struggling to pay their insurance premiums, perhaps those who lost their houses and possessions in the recent floods in the south of England, will not understand why they have to pay more in tax while people who take private health care insurance seek and may get a tax break for so doing.
The flooding in the south and other parts of England and in Perthshire last year illustrate an important point about the Government's philosophy. If individuals do not insure against loss through flood and so on, there is all the more obligation on the Government to dip into the public purse to bail out people. Clearly, the Government have a general strategic responsibility when there is a wholesale disaster, but it cannot be in the interests of the public or the Treasury to make it less likely that people will insure against such risks.
The people we saw on the television and read about in the newspapers who suffered from the floods at the beginning of the year will face increased premiums next year. Anyone who has ever taken out an insurance policy will notice that, apart from the fact that the small print is loaded on the side of the companies rather than on the side of those who take out insurance, if a claim of any substance is made, the premium will go up.
One of the growing problems in Britain is vandalism, theft and damage to cars. Car insurance premiums are rising dramatically. If the Government take a percentage on top of that, there will be a disincentive to insure properly, and that cannot be in the public interest.
When we hear the Government preaching self-reliance, as the man from the private health insurers would have us believe, it would be interesting to hear what justification or philosophy drove the Government to the decision to tax what is entirely necessary and laudable thinking.
The Government are sending people a confused message. What are they saying to responsible and prudent people? It seems to me that they are saying, "We will tax you for your responsible attitude and again for your prudent increase in insurance cover". Tax and tax again —that is the story of the Government and people will get nothing for it.
It is not as if the tax will go towards better policing or crime prevention. The Government's record on crime prevention is as dismal as their record on running the economy. People are facing a rising crime rate and the Government appear helpless and are doing nothing except lashing out in all directions when the crime rate continues to rise in most parts of England and Wales.
Insurance premiums are increasing anyway. Lloyd's is facing substantial risks and premiums will have to increase to meet them. There is also the problem of fraudulent claims which are costing insurance companies dear. Those who do not make claims have to pay increased premiums each year.
There are also technical matters, but I shall not go into them in great depth because other hon. Members want to speak in this short debate. However, one or two points ought to be mentioned.
There is the matter of creditor insurance. At a time of recession and difficult economic circumstances, people have wisely taken out insurance to cover that risk, yet that is to be caught. Will the Minister say something about that?.
There is the technical issue of commission. Commission is excluded, but, as the Paymaster General will know, there are many different ways of selling insurance policies that do not involve commission and there is understandably a feeling within the industry that those companies with a direct sales force may be adversely affected. We may wish to return to that issue in Committee in the four or five minutes allocated to the clause. At the same time, we shall consider whether the tax should be paid when the premium is received or at some other point.
.
Perhaps tonight the Minister will let us know the position with regard to the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association. Both consider that on one reading of the Bill their entire fee will be caught by the tax because of the nature of the services they offer. Perhaps the Government will let us know whether that is their understanding and, if it is, whether it was their intention as it does not seem desirable to tax the AA, RAC or any other motoring organisation.
I draw attention to the anti-forestalling measures. I understand that certain steps have to be taken to stop people avoiding any tax. However, there is some strength in the argument that the Government should strike at an abnormal payment rather than circumstances in which it is normal to pay for insurance cover in advance.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the consultative process is progressing on the fiscal regime for those companies that make reserves against future losses.
The Paymaster General may recall that during the debate on last year's Finance Bill—which was discussed expeditiously so that every clause was done more than justice, yet did not seem to have the problems visited upon us by the Government after the first few hours of debate —when we were discussing insurance, the point was raised that European insurance companies have a more favourable tax regime which allows them to make provision against future losses. Because we do not have that, it is sometimes difficult for our United Kingdom companies to compete effectively against other insurance companies in the European Union.
This might be an opportune time for the Paymaster General to tell us how the discussion process is progressing as many in the industry would like to know what has happened to it. It was announced last year but did not get far.
Insurance tax is yet another tax. It is another way in which the Chancellor seeks to raise money to avoid blatantly increasing what used to be referred to as the standard rate of income tax. It will not fool anybody. It will hit many prudent and responsible people very hard indeed.
It is ironic that the Government, with all the rhetoric of the 1980s, should be a Government who tax prudence and responsibility. That comes as no surprise to us. What the Government do is quite different from what they say.
People do not trust the Government, not just because of what they have done to the economy or in raising tax despite the fact that at the last election they promised not to increase tax. What they are doing is damaging to people in the country. It goes against the grain and causes offence because it chooses to tax responsibility and prudence. It is for those reasons that we will oppose the clause tonight

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): It may be convenient for the Committee if I speak briefly at this point. I hope to have more time to speak later in the debate, and certainly later in Committee. I had hoped to speak yesterday and earlier today, but I will not take time now rearguing the debate on the timetable motion that we have had for most of today.
The introduction of any new tax is the subject of careful consideration, and that includes the insurance premium tax. Careful thought was given before the Budget to the matters listed in the amendment, and to other matters, before we made the proposals in the Budget that are incorporated in the Bill. Since the announcement was made on Budget day, we have been able to consult much more

widely outside the Government with all kinds of other interests affected by it. I want to make it clear to the Committee that those consultations are continuing. In some cases particular points are outstanding. I shall refer to those in a moment.
In common with other financial services, insurance and associated services are exempt from VAT. That exception is expressed in European Community agreements. That is one of the reasons why we have introduced the tax. Similar taxes apply in many other countries within the European Community. It seemed to the Chancellor that this area of consumer expenditure was subject to less indirect taxation than many others. It was therefore appropriate to introduce the tax when we faced the financial problems that the House has endlessly discussed. We must consider the impact of the tax on private individuals and those policy holders who will be affected by it and also the insurance industry and other industries which must pay it.
On the rate and the scope of the tax, it is important to understand that there are exceptions, which are part of the nature of insurance. For example, if we were to tax reinsurance, it would create double taxation. It is important not to do that. The principal exemption is long-term insurance—life insurance, endowment mortgages and pensions. We see those essentially as a form of savings and investment that are quite distinct from the bulk of general insurance, to which the tax is addressed. We have provided for them to be left out of the tax. We have no proposals to change that at any time. I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on that point.
We have been careful in the design of the tax to exempt overseas risks. The British insurance industry insures many risks all over the world, through both reinsurance and direct insurance. It is important not to damage our international earning capacity in that way. Also covered by exemptions are various marine and aviation risks, international trade credit, and so on.
Our approach has been to have an inclusive tax. The tax is intended to apply across a broad base. In so doing, it can be set at a low rate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central implicitly—almost explicitly—recognised that fact in what he said about private health insurance. As he recognises, we have designed the tax so that it applies to private health insurance. We see that as a form of general insurance. Like other general insurance, it offers an indemnity against costs incurred in a particular eventuality. I do not think that there is any reason to treat it any differently.
That brings me to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about whether we were trying in some way to discourage insurance. To tax something is not necessarily to say that one does not think that it should take place. After all, we tax income. We have taxed many other things that we are not trying to discourage but which nevertheless we think form a proper basis for contributions to the national Exchequer.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Paymaster General give way?

Sir John Cope: In a moment.
It is a fact that, in the past, and up to now, insurance has been exempt, for example, from VAT and has not paid much in indirect tax. That is why the Chancellor has looked in this direction.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister agree that a tax on insurance will deter people, particularly those on low incomes who are already subject to high rates of crime in their neighbourhood, from taking out any insurance?

Sir John Cope: I will say something about particular individuals in a moment..
Applying the tax at a relatively low rate of 3 per cent. across such a broad base serves to achieve as fair as possible a distribution of the tax burden. As the hon. Lady suggests, there are inevitably variations in the level of premiums depending on the risk insured. In setting the rate, the Chancellor was able to conclude that it would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall cost of insurance and thus on the take-up of insurance. Clearly, the price of insurance is dictated by a range of things.
At 3 per cent., the impact of the tax will not realistically be a major influence, particularly if one reflects, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central did, on the significant premium increases that the market has borne in recent years. The impact of the tax on individual taxpayers will vary considerably according to their particular pattern of insurance in every respect.

Mr. Darling: The Paymaster General seems to be saying that cost does not matter. That must fly in the face of everything that Tory Ministers have been telling the country for years. He is saying that, because costs are going up anyway, it is all right to slap another tax on top from the Government. That surely cannot be right.

Sir John Cope: No, that is not what I said earlier. I said that if one looks at the effect of the way premiums have increased in recent years one can see—or one can try to measure—the effect that cost increases have on the take-up of insurance. That is relevant in considering the potential effect of the introduction of the tax on the take-up of insurance.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out also that the Chancellor had said, and it is a fact, that the average cost of the tax to a household with buildings, contents and motor insurance—some 44 per cent. of households—will be about 35p a week. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman and everybody else will recognise, that is an average. The average cost of the tax on three quarters of households with some contents insurance will be about 6p a week. Sixty per cent. of households have some motor insurance. The tax for them is expected to average about 18p a week. Overall, the figures reveal that the tax is mildly progressive, because on average richer households pay more on insurance as a proportion of their income than poorer households, and have more valuable possessions of every kind.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the Paymaster General give way?

Sir John Cope: I am not anxious to give way a lot, because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, after I have finished making this point.
The family expenditure survey shows that the poorest 20 per cent. of households on average spend about £120 a year on taxable insurance. That means that their IPT would come out at about 7p a week. The richest 20 per cent. of households pay about £800 a year. Their IPT will come out at about 47p a week.

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Paymaster General depart from his prepared script for a moment? He mentioned the progressive nature of the tax. The insurance premiums of the people to whom he referred are low only because they have few possessions; many others have no insurance at all, because the incidence of burglary in their area has made the premiums unaffordable or, indeed, has caused the insurance companies to refuse them cover.
Some inner-city dwellers feel that the Government are already effectively taxing them by not providing a decent standard of law and order, thereby forcing up insurance premiums. To impose a tax on top of that is appalling.

Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech, if there is time..
The financial facts, as I said earlier, demonstrate that the effects of the tax will be mildly progressive. A similar picture can be seen in the business sector, in that the tax will have a fairly even impact across industry. On average, insurance represents about 1 per cent. of business costs; the new tax will add about 0·03 per cent. to those costs.
The tax will, of course, have the greatest impact on the insurance industry itself. Although it will be applied to insurance premiums rather than directly to the insurance companies, its introduction will coincide with the current upswing rather than with a downturn in the trading cycle of what is, after all, a very cyclical business.
Naturally, the industry is also concerned about the workings of the tax. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central listed some technical matters, which we will no doubt discuss later; however, we have made it clear from the outset—in the consultations to which I have referred —that we wish to minimise the compliance costs incurred by the industry, and indeed by the Government and Customs and Excise.
I am pleased to say that our dialogue with the industry has been extremely constructive. In response to the invitation extended by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and to representations from a number of my hon. Friends, some of whom are present now, we are prepared to consider sympathetically the industry's case for being given the option of accounting for the tax on the so-called premium written basis, thus tying in more closely with many of the industry's current accounting arrangements. Such an option would, however, be subject to further examination of its implications with the industry. In my view, those implications include the use of gross premiums as the base of tax, rather than the net premiums that we contemplated originally. Customs and Excise is continuing to discuss the matter with the insurance industry, and we shall of course return to it later in the Committee stage; indeed, the details of all these matters will be discussed by the Standing Committee.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central raised the question of creditor insurance. I must give him the same answer that I gave in regard to private health insurance: we consider that the tax should apply to all general insurance, at a low rate. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the motoring organisations. Perhaps I should declare an


interest, in that I belong to the RAC. Subscriptions to the RAC, the AA, National Breakdown and other motoring organisations are divided up from the VAT point of view: they are partly exempt and partly zero rated, in recognition that part of the subscription is in the nature of insurance. It is to that part that the new tax will apply: it is insurance in any ordinary sense of the word, although its mechanics happen to be rather different.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement, we introduced the tax in an effort to raise revenue in a way that is fair to all concerned, with the least possible compliance costs. It is, however, a revenue-raising tax, and it deals with a sector that has hitherto paid little in the way of indirect tax, for reasons that I gave earlier. No doubt we shall return to the details in this and future debates.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: This new tax proposal illustrates the Government's basic lack of principle. Last week, it was said that during the election the Conservative party promised to be the party of low crime; in fact, it is the party of high crime. It also promised to be the party of low taxation—but, as we have seen in recent weeks and will see again following the passage of the Bill, it is the party of high taxation.
To my constituents, those two matters seem closely linked. London Members of Parliament look around them and see a city that has become the crime capital of Europe. There are 60·2 incidents of burglary and car crime per 1,000 members of London's population; there are 45 such incidents in Paris, 32 in Rome and 23 in Madrid. That demonstrates the difficulties experienced by the Metropolitan police. In a recent survey, the Association of London Authorities stated that crime was one of the major concerns of Londoners—and who can blame them, given the doubling in recorded crime in the capital since 1979?.
How will the Government respond? My constituents —like those of every other hon. Member—will be hit by a tax on protecting themselves from crime: a tax on household insurance, as well as all the other types of insurance that the Bill will capture. Not only do my constituents have to suffer from the increase in recorded crime that we have seen in Britain and from all its economic consequences, but they will have to pay yet another tax when they insure themselves against crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, insurance premiums are already sky high. The people who have been hit hardest are those who live in the less prosperous areas of the inner cities. They pay up to seven times more than those who live in more affluent areas. Yet the Chancellor indicated in his Budget speech that for the typical family that tax will cost about 35p a week. That figure belies the great differences resulting from the nature of the locations in which people live.
As several of my hon. Friends have said, some people are lucky to get insurance at all. The Consumers Association reported recently that in some high-crime areas insurance companies will not provide cover at all. Researchers anonymously asked 16 insurers for cover for a three-bedroom London house with a record of two theft claims in the last year—by no means unusual, as my constituents and, I am sure, the constituents of other hon. Members could confirm. Only one of the 16 insurance companies would quote a figure. Yet the Paymaster

General has the nerve to describe this as a progressive tax—"mildly progressive" are the words that I think he used. Nothing could be further from reality.
9 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) showed last week, the average cost of household contents insurance rose from £66 in 1988 to £114 last year —an increase of more than 70 per cent. Last year insurance claims for home break-ins totalled £2 million a day, or £25 per second. And claims resulting from car crime have doubled in the past two years.
A tax on insurance is an unfair levy on the victims of crime. It is they who are too often forgotten when we discuss this matter. This tax is also likely to mean that some people will simply be unable to afford to insure their homes and cars, even if they are lucky enough to find a company willing to take the risk. Last week one of my constituents wrote to me about the proposed new tax. She said:
Not only are premiums ever increasing but now the Government has added a tax surcharge, and twice this month I have received outrageous insurance bills. First, my contents insurance has cost me nearly £220 for £12,000 contents cover and I had to reject higher cover because I could not afford it. If I am now burgled, or my flat burns down, I will not financially be able to recover my possessions.
Can the Paymaster-General tell me what I am supposed to say to that constituent—apart, of course, from
Don't ever vote Conservative again"?
During the Chancellor's Budget speech he justified levying a tax on insurance by saying that it would broaden the tax base. Once again the Government are asking the people of this country to pay for the economic mistakes of the Chancellor and his predecessor. Not only that, but the amount that the Government will raise from this measure —estimated by the Chancellor at more than £750 million a year—is as high as that because of the high premiums resulting from the huge increase in crime that has occurred since the Government came to power. There has been a massive 124 per cent. rise in crime since 1979. The very Government who presided over this increase have the cheek now to tax people who take the precaution of insuring themselves against crime.
The Labour party has consistently pressed the Government on crime prevention—urging them to implement the Morgan report and to abandon their policyof centralising police forces and undermining the very morale of the men and women who so bravely police ourstreets. We in this country still spend so little on crime prevention—the very thing that we need to stop crime.
The RAC recently launched a poster campaign about car crime with the slogan
It isn't the car that's broken down, it's law and order.
That slogan could very well be adopted by the many people in Britain who have had their cars vandalised and their homes violated by burglary after burglary.
What is to be done about this problem? By imposing the levy, the Government are merely taxing the victims. As has been said often and recently, we are getting to the position of having to ask how one can insure oneself against insurance premiums. I should like to end with the words of my constituent when she considered rather despairingly what she and others would be able to do:
This is another example of how this Government has created an environment where those who can will, and those who can't won't

Mr. John Greenway: I begin by declaring an interest, with which hon. Members are familiar: I have worked for more than 20 years in the insurance industry.
It is fair to say that the insurance industry is disappointed by the imposition of the insurance premium tax. I share its view. Anyone who has followed what is happening in the industry across the Community will observe that it is not entirely surprising that the Government have copied what virtually every Community Government have done, recognising that, under directives, VAT cannot be imposed on insurance premiums. The Government have therefore announced insurance premium taxes instead

Mr. Darling: On a point or order, Mr. Lofthouse. I do not want to stop the hon. Member in mid-flow. He was good enough to declare his interest, having worked in the industry for some years. As I understand it, the rules of the House are more extensive. The hon. Member's entry in the Register is extensive. I understand that it is incumbent on hon. Members to declare all the companies of which they are a director, and those from which they have an employment or office or trade or profession and their clients.
I know that it would take the hon. Member a long time to do so, but given his interest in the matter, the House and those who follow our proceedings should know what his interests are.

The First Deputy Chairman: The House will be fully aware of the hon. Member's interests from the Register of Members' Interests. If the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) feels that he should enlighten the House

Mr. Greenway: I shall enlighten the House further on one or two other points of interest that relate directly to what I shall say. I am sure that no hon. Member thinks that I would deliberately wish to mislead the House or hide my interests.
I said that I have been involved in the insurance industry for more than 20 years. I am an elected member of one of the industry's regulators, and my comments hitherto, far from causing the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to think that I am entirely in the pocket of the Government, were on the industry's response.
It is a pity that, after 24 hours of hot air and piffle on this Committee stage, some of the serious, important issues on the future of the insurance industry arising from the application of this tax have not been addressed. We have heard the kind of speeches that we heard on Second Reading—and even before that, in the debate on the Budget.
The Government have merely copied what other member states have done, by imposing an insurance premium tax. The idea is not new. I am aware from discussions that the Association of British Insurers was not entirely surprised by the Government's decision. That does not mean that it does not have concerns—as I shall show, it most certainly has—but the argument that taxation on insurance is a new concept in this country is nonsense, because insurance funds are taxed.
If there is one matter on which I agree 100 per cent. with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, it is on the need for the Government to deliver on their promise in the Finance Bill last year that something should be done about the wicked way in which reserving is taxed in the United Kingdom compared with our competitors in the European

Community. If we are saying that, by introducing an IPT, we are merely putting ourselves on the same footing as other member states, the tax regime should be the same.
I want to draw attention to one or two of the technical points that concern insurers before dealing with another important but rather different matter. First, I think that the Paymaster General's acknowledgment earlier in the debate of the possibility —I think that "option" was the word he used—of dealing with the tax on a written premium basis rather than a cash received basis will have come as some relief to United Kingdom insurers. Since he has made that announcement, perhaps for this evening we ought to let the matter rest there, except to urge him to pursue the discussions with all due urgency. October 1 sounds a long way off, but companies will have to put systems in place soon if they are to introduce the tax smoothly on 1 October.
I shall not mention the subject of commission, as an insurance broker, except to say that I suspect that the only streamlined and simple way of dealing with the tax will probably be in the end to tax the whole premium, because there are grave difficulties throughout the industry in accounting for commission on a fair basis.
A third problem, to which my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General did not refer but which is of grave concern to United Kingdom insurers, is the fact that the tax will apply only to premiums for a risk that is situated in the United Kingdom. Although, in the great majority of cases, that will not cause a problem, there are a significant number of insurances taken out by multinational groups for which the risk may be situate partly in the United Kingdom and partly elsewhere.
Currently, no mechanism is used for other purposes which would distinguish between the proportion of premium that relates to United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom risks. The practical problems of making such a distinction are considerable, and it is important that they should be solved in a way which provides certainty and administrative simplicity.
That argument leads to two others. First, it is crucial that the imposition of the tax does not drive business away from the London market. That could be possible if there is uncertainty about the basis on which the split between United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom risks will be made, or if there is a significant difference of approach to such a distinction between the United Kingdom and other European jurisdictions which also impose those premium taxes.
Secondly—this worries me—any allocation of premiums between United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom risks that is not formula-based is likely to involve considerable judgment on the part of the insurer. If an element involving considerable subjectivity is to be introduced into the tax, the uncertainty involved is likely to cause considerable apprehension about the basis on which Customs and Excise will audit insurers accounting for the tax.
That is a worry, because, given the proposed penalty arrangements in the Bill for incorrect accounting, there is a general view among insurers—which I share—that the proposed penalty regime could be unduly harsh and could be wholly inappropriate, given the uncertainties and complexities which are likely to be involved.
It could be a mistake to apply such a regime on the introduction of the tax from day one, given those potential uncertainties, and we may need to consider some bedding-in period, during which there could be continuing


consultation between the industry and Customs and Excise —in which I am sure my right hon. Friend would want to take an interest—and there should be penalties only where there is clear evidence of an attempt to evade payment of the tax.
I know that my right hon. Friend has encouraged Customs and Excise staff to discuss those matters with the industry, but, as I have said, time is pressing, and I think that the industry feels that those matters need to be concluded perhaps by as early as February, and certainly by Easter, if we are to introduce the tax in time for a starting date of 1 October.
There is another point to be made about the transitional arrangements. The Bill contains provisions to prevent the avoidance of insurance premium tax by the use of insurance contracts commencing before 1 October but ending more than 12 months later. Clearly, that is a measure intended to prevent evasion.
It is consistent with practice in the case of most insurances where the normal contract duration is 12 months but, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will realise, it is common for some types of insurance to last a number of years—mortgage indemnity insurance and extended warranty business are two clear examples. I suggest that extended warranty business should perhaps be exempt altogether, because such warranties are not conventional insurance but part of the overall contract of sale and the acquisition of stronger guarantees for the consumer.
9.15 pm
There are grave misgivings among the major United Kingdom companies and property investors about the intention to apply insurance premium tax to premiums collected by pool re for terrorism insurance. For more than a year, we have been fighting an uphill struggle to persuade more companies to avail themselves of terrorism insurance through the pool re facility. It seems extraordinary to some of us that, in those circumstances, we should want to add the 3 per cent. tax to an already heavy premium which, through the pool re scheme, will of course be substantially more than companies previously paid for terrorist cover.
I declare a further interest in a different sphere. I am the honorary, which means unpaid, adviser to the British Health Care Association. I have written to my right hon. Friend many times in this regard. It would not be unreasonable to say that most of the association's member schemes are affiliated to the trade union movement, and they will not be especially pleased with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said when he urged my right hon. Friend not to extend the exemptions for medical insurance. The matter is catered for in the Bill, and the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that insurance premium tax would not apply to permanent health insurance.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central who mentioned company directors and said that they might insure themselves for when they are sick or in case of a major accident. Many people take out income insurance through permanent health policies, especially if they are self-employed.
The insurance policies provided by the British Health Care Association do not strictly come into that category, as they are not permanent but cancellable, and contribution rates and benefits are varied, usually on a three or four-year

basis. The uprating of premiums every year to take account of IPT, especially if the rate varied in future, would cause considerable administrative difficulty.
In general terms, a contributor to one of these schemes purchases units of cover which provide cash benefits during stays in hospital, or which specifically reimburse NHS dental and optical charges. Most contributors have their payments debited from their pay, with the gross amount paid to the member scheme by their employer. That is one reason why there is often trade union involvement in persuading members to take advantage of such facilities.
The schemes aim to provide low-cost health benefits. Although not charitable in their formal structure, they are non-profit-making and return a high percentage of income to contributors during stays in hospital. Any surpluses are used to purchase medical equipment or to make donations to local NHS hospitals or medical charities. Hon. Members may recall that, a few months ago, a donation from one of the BHCA schemes, the Westfield contributory scheme, based in Sheffield, donated £5,000 for the purchase of a minibus for the relief effort in a Bosnian hospital.
Having been associated with the BHCA for some years, it is clear to me that, if insurance premium tax was levied on members' contributions, it could deter contributors and would lead to less generous support of local hospitals by member schemes. Many of the contributors to those schemes are at the lower end of the income scale, and are not able to afford the cost of permanent health insurance. They do, nevertheless, recognise the prudence of having a cash benefit to help cover loss of earnings during a stay in hospital or during maternity. In that respect, while the technical nature of those policies is different to permanent health insurance and therefore cannot be said to be long term, the motivation, the benefit and the effect on the individual are largely the same.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to think again to try to find a way of exempting such cash-benefit health insurance policies. I willingly admit that it does not help our argument that those schemes are not especially different from the sort of private insurance schemes that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central mentioned.
Nevertheless, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are some 3 million members of the BHCA schemes, who contribute about £158 million in premiums. Therefore, we are considering tax of about £4·7 million. If that money is taken in tax, apart from any potential deterrent effect to people belonging to the schemes or increasing members' benefits, the BHCA will have £4·7 million less to donate to the NHS and medical charities.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: Like other hon. Members, I had hoped to speak yesterday, and I had hoped to speak to a Liberal Democrat amendment. In the time that I have been here, it has become obvious to me that nothing is certain in this place.
We are happy to support the amendment, because at least it would stop the tax being implemented before it received heavy scrutiny. Each year, the Budget causes a great deal of speculation, and every Chancellor likes to bring a few surprises. Certainly, the Chancellor entered into that spirit with his first Budget. In recent years, the abolition of a tax has been part of that surprise. After years of rhetoric about the Conservatives being the Government of low taxation, it certainly was a surprise to hear the Chancellor proposing not one new tax, but two.
We have already dealt at some length with the Chancellor's new tax on airports. With the second tax, on insurance premiums, I fear that the Chancellor is set to go down in history as the man who really did make a drama out of a crisis. Having sprung IPT on us, he boldly claimed that it was nothing, a mere 3 per cent. He said that everywhere in Europe has such a tax and claimed that this country's was the only finance industry that was not taxed. He further claimed that the tax would mean a 35p increase only for the average household.
Let us examine those claims. The tax will be 3 per cent. only, but, once it is in place, there is no knowing where that tax will be hiked. After all, it cannot be worth the cost of all that bureaucracy for a mere 3 per cent. The Chancellor's claim that our finance industry gets away with it compared to Europe does not entirely stand up either. Since he is such a disciple of indirect taxes, he cannot have missed the VAT paid by insurers and policyholders on costs incurred. That VAT is not recoverable by insurers, as they are VAT-exempt.
As the Association of British Insurers readily points out, insurance companies already bear levies for the Policyholders Protection Board and the Motor Insurers Bureau. United Kingdom insurance companies are, as we have already heard, at a tax disadvantage generally when compared with their overseas competitors. They cannot set up tax-deductible equalisation reserves. As has already been said, although there has been a consultation document on that, there has been no commitment so far to meetings with the Department of Trade and Industry or with the Inland Revenue.
The Chancellor claims that the cost will be only 35p a week on average for each household. The insurers do not agree with that figure. They point out that the Chancellor bases the average figure on the so-called "typical" family with motor, home contents and building cover. That neatly neglects the effects of the new tax on travel policies, warranties on electrical goods, personal liability, accident cover and even membership of motoring organisations.
The greatest sleight of hand comes in referring to the average or the typical. I do not know whether the Conservative party in its heart still subscribes to the idea that there is no such thing as society. When it suits Conservatives, they seem to believe in the average. In reality, the effects will vary greatly depending on where one lives, and on individuals' personal and family circumstances. Other hon. Members have talked about their own constituents.
A family taking out household and contents cover for a three-bedroomed, semi-detached house in Wolverhampton, for example, will pay about £10·50 more on that cover alone. A one-bedroomed flat in an apartment block in Hampstead could cost £18 more a year—the Chancellor's figure of 35p a week—just for the property cover. Whom will the electorate believe—the Government or the insurance companies? It is an indication of the regard in which the Government are held that it will be the insurance companies.
Why are I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues so opposed to this tax? First, there is simply no justification for it at this time. In the 14 years in which the Government have been in power, crime has more than doubled. Directly linked to that, there has been a rapid rise in the cost of

insurance. Between 1987 and 1993, household contents insurance rose by more than 60 per cent. in real terms, and car insurance has more than doubled.
The need for insurance has never been greater. In my county of Dorset, between 1979 and 1992, there was a 78 per cent. increase in the number of motor vehicle thefts notified to the police and an alarming 171 per cent. increase in the number of domestic burglaries. The tax will merely add to the misery of the victims of car theft and burglary.
It rubs salt into the wounds of those who have already suffered enough from rising crime during 14 years of this Government. It is a tax on those who most need protection—people like the frightened woman living alone who wrote to me saying that she lives in fear of being the next victim.
The Chancellor may try to pretend, as others have tonight, that the tax is nothing. I know that the electorate are not so easily fooled. To too many of them, it will be yet another increased bill. That is true particularly for those on fixed low and falling incomes.
9.30 pm
The tax will not come in isolation. Under the Government, water bills shot up after privatisation. The boom-bust economy has meant that those living on investment incomes have seen that income plummet as interest rates have fallen. State pensions have not kept up with average earnings, and the Government are now taxing invalidity benefit. Social housing rents have increased, particularly those of housing associations and, most cruelly, VAT is to be imposed on domestic heating and lighting.
Our second big objection to the tax is that it is unfair. We have already heard from other hon. Members that it will affect those in high crime regions, which have the highest insurance premiums. They are often our inner cities. Indeed, parts of our inner cities are in postcode regions where it is impossible to obtain insurance. Our inner cities desperately need regeneration, which means investment in housing, infrastructure and, vitally, in new business. But how will those regions be regenerated if small businesses in particular are not attracted to them because the insurance is either prohibitively expensive or impossible to obtain?
The Government are very fond of arguing that switching from direct to indirect taxation promotes consumer choice. Therein lies the fundamental problem with placing indirect taxes on those goods and services that are, at the very least, difficult, and often impossible, to do without. There is little choice when it comes to necessities.
Why should people who have provided for themselves and paid taxes and national insurance all their lives now be penalised even further? That is what people outside the Chamber are asking. They cannot understand why the Government keep taking from them when those who better off continue to be rewarded. People want taxes to reflect their ability to pay, not their need to live—the tax does not do that.
Our third objection to the tax is that it is inefficient. It is a new tax, and will lead to more paperwork and more bureaucracy for, as we have heard, very little extra revenue. There are 28 clauses in the Finance Bill. Some 40 pages deal with the tax and there will be more details in the secondary legislation that is to come.
As with insurance forms, it is the small print that we need to study. The insurance companies say that millions


of pounds of hidden costs will be involved in setting up the system needed to administer the new levy. Norwich Union, which has about 2 million household and motor insurance policyholders, says that it will cost several millions pounds just to set up the new system to collect the tax, and a further £1 million to administer it.
The premium tax could be the final straw for individuals and companies, forcing them to cut their outgoings and to insure themselves inadequately or not at all. In the long run, that will cost us more as a nation.
This bureaucratic and unfair tax will bring in to Government coffers less than £300 million in 1994–95, £775 million in 1995–96 and up to £840 million in 1996–97. Will that really make a big inroad into the £50 billion deficit?
That brings me to the Liberal Democrats' fourth objection to the proposed insurance tax: it is devious. It is simply a back-handed attempt to raise revenue in any way possible, so long as it is not through income tax—although tax thresholds have already been frozen, and that will bring 400,000 more people into tax. National insurance contributions have been raised, sick pay has been hived off from the state to the private sector, and now there is a new tax that the Chancellor tries to pretend is nothing. It is yet another tax that the Government will increase so as to avoid visibly increasing income tax rates.
That does not wash with the electorate any more. I believe that the Government have been found out. If not the opinion polls, election results show that people will not be so easily fooled again. One of my constituents, who did not vote for me in the by-election—there were some of those —but who had watched the Government's behaviour since I was elected, declared,"It will be a cold day in hell before I ever vote Conservative again."
Liberal Democrats wanted a Budget to give us an investment-led recovery. That should have been started long ago, and we have advocated it for some time. We wanted to see fair taxation, based above all on people's ability to pay, not another tax that falls most heavily on those in need and on the most vulnerable, those who have been so badly let down by the Government. Anyone who has been talking to people outside the House will know that the last thing they want is another new tax.
My hon. Friends and I reject the tax. We support the amendment, because it would at least ensure that the measure was not enacted until it had been properly scrutinised. The proposed new tax is unjustifiable, inefficient and devious—but, above all, it is unfair.

Mr. John Hutton: In the time left for the debate I shall make several general observations about the insurance premium tax. Like the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I want to comment on some of the complexities that might flow if we passed the measure.
I shall start with the speech of the Paymaster General. I was mildly encouraged by the fact that he described the new tax as progressive. That is the first time since I entered the House that I have heard a Conservative Treasury Minister express support for the notion of progressive taxation. I hope that we can look forward to hearing Treasury Ministers espouse the virtues of progressive taxation on future occasions—but I am afraid that I expect to be disappointed.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) talked about the sum that the proposed tax would raise. And

we must consider it specifically in those terms. The Government's clear aim in introducing an insurance premium tax is to broaden the tax base. It is simply a money-raising device, with no other merit whatever, and in 1996–97 it will be expected to raise nearly £1 billion—almost the entire budget of the Department of National Heritage. Unlike the hon. Lady, I look upon that as a considerable sum.
Why do the Government propose to tax insurance? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, insurance is an inherently good thing, and I believe that it is the role of Government to encourage people to take out proper insurance, to insure themselves against the risk of illness and other eventualities, and especially to take out home contents insurance, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred.
There is an ideological problem associated with the tax, because it is targeted at something that is positive and life enhancing. The Minister did not address that problem.
We have been told, as we have been in a number of Budget statements and economic debates, about the Government's policy on indirect taxes. We have been told repeatedly that the Government favour indirect taxes. Indeed, they are such an advocate of indirect taxes that they have invented two totally new taxes. We have the insurance premium tax, which we are debating tonight, and the airport duty tax, which we debated last night. It is worth bearing in mind that these are the first two new indirect taxes in more than 20 years.
Given the attendance certainly on the Tory Benches for most of this debate, it is not surprising that the introduction of this new tax has promoted rampant indifference on the part of the Conservative party. For example, there is no reference to the insurance premium tax in the Government's manifesto. Indeed, it could be argued that this tax goes against the grain of Tory tax policy since 1979.
Insurance is not an optional item of expenditure in many households, so insurance premium tax will not work in the same way as value added tax. It cannot be argued that insurance premiums are an optional extra—that taxpayers can choose whether to spend money on insurance premiums in the same way as they do when they consume normal household goods. The issue is fundamentally different. The insurance premium tax will directly hit basic and essential items in household budgets. It is estimated —accurately, I believe—that 16·5 million households will pay insurance premium tax.
I do not believe that it in any way reduces the strength of the argument that we have deployed against insurance premium tax to argue that the rate of IPT will be only 3 per cent. because we know what the Government have done to the rate of value added tax since 1979. It might start at 3 per cent., then it will be 5 per cent., then 10 per cent. and then 20 per cent. That is exactly the sort of policy approach that the Government have adopted over many years. The Chancellor estimates that the revenue to be raised by IPT will be equivalent to 35p a week. Given the accuracy of his predictons in other areas of the Government's fiscal policy, however, we are entitled to treat that prediction with some caution. The revenue raised is likely to be much higher.
One of the problems—the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) did us all a service by drawing attention to this—is that IPT, and the way in which the tax has been constructed in the Bill, looks to be potentially a wide tax

.
Clearly, it will cover insurance policies such as travel insurance, warranties on electrical goods, mortgage indemnities and certainly private medical insurance. The real figure that we can attach to IPT and its impact on household budgets is more likely to be £1 per week.
The hon. Member for Ryedale drew attention to the views of the insurance industry. The best that we can say is that the insurance industry has given the tax a muted response. The Association of British Insurers and other groups have expressed concern that the net effect of IPT will almost certainly be that people will take out inadequate insurance or no insurance cover at all, and that is to be regretted.
I have only one minute left. I prepared wider notes on IPT but clearly I shall not be able to make those remarks tonight. It might be reasonable, therefore, to conclude that IPT will be an unpopular tax. It has been conceived for the wrong reasons and it will impact most heavily on those who should not be asked to get the Government out of their deep financial mess. I am reminded, as I usually am on such occasions, of the comments of Sir Edmund Burke, who wrote in 1775:
To tax and to please … is not given to men
That is especially apposite in the context of the insurance premium tax.

Mr. Darling: This has been a short and not altogether satisfactory debate because there has not been nearly enough time to examine some of the general problems of the tax, let alone the specfic ones.
I shall start by making a preliminary point about the speech of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). The reason why I raised the point of order about declaration of interest is important. It is not a personal matter in relation to the hon. Gentleman because I know that, in many debates, he has made speeches about the insurance industry, about which he knows. Indeed, he has made one or two comments that have been helpful to arguments that I have made. Perhaps he made them inadvertently, but he did so.
There is a point in principle here. It is our experience that, as the Bill goes into Committee, a large number of Tory Members raise matters because they are consultants to various people. It is a bad precedent, and it is bad for this Parliament, that industries should get into the habit of thinking that the way to raise matters in Parliament is by buying the services of a consultant. That is wholly inappropriate and it should be deplored. Having said that, the hon. Member for Ryedale raised a number of important matters. The technical matters in the Bill need to be discussed. There are about 28 clauses and there are regulations which we have not yet seen.
I do not think that any hon. Member has said that, during the next few months, the Government will be coming up with hordes of regulations to make the tax work. We should not lose sight of the fact that the industry will have to change its accounting systems to make the tax work.
9.45 pm
In addition to all of the regulatory burdens, the insurance industry will now have to set people in place to administer and to collect the tax. The cost of the new systems and the new employees will add to the premium

costs and the public will not just be paying the insurance tax but will be paying the cost of its administration. The cost will not be met by the Government and it will not be defrayed against other expenditure. It will be met by ordinary people.
The technical points made by the hon. Gentleman were important, as was his point concerning the United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom risks. The Government have done many things on which we have touched in other debates that may drive business away from the London market. They must have regard to the consequences of their actions. An insurance tax may be seen to be a light touch or an easy option, and the Government will pray in aid the fact that there are similar taxes on insurance in other parts of the European Union.
However, the tax does not end with the 3 per cent. levy which is currently being imposed. The costs of administration and collection and the regulatory costs must be added to the cost of the insurance industry. Those costs must be paid for either directly by those who pay premiums, or through more redundancies in the industry. Anyone who has been involved in the insurance industry will know that it has had many redundancies, and I fear that there are more to come. I suspect that the tax will add to those redundancies.
The second point of the hon. Member for Ryedale was on private health care. I agree with him that it is entirely to be encouraged that people take out insurance which provides cash cover in the event of illness. We have always sought to encourage that and the Government are right to exempt that type of long-term insurance. Where the distinction falls to be drawn is between that sort of insurance and private health care insurance, which is in effect providing private health care as an alternative to the NHS. That is a difficult distinction to draw in technical terms, but it is one which the Government must draw.
I do not think that the Paymaster General was particularly clear about the distinction and I hope that he will make it clear that private health care insurance will not be exempt from the tax. If it is exempt, the people who must pay increased premiums for insuring their houses or their cars will not understand it.
Let me turn to another important point. The Minister said—whether he likes it or not, I have a note of him saying this—that the costs of the tax are not important because other costs in the industry are going up. It beggars belief that a Treasury Minister would make such a statement, but the fact is that insurance costs are going up dramatically.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said that the crime rate in London and in our other major cities and towns is escalating. The cost of insurance is becoming prohibitive and many people cannot get insurance of any sort. For a person seeking car insurance, the criterion for having to meet a larger burden of insurance is not so much whether he has had his car damaged or stolen but that he lives in a particular area. That burden is becoming so prohibitive to some people that they will under-insure or not insure at all. It is not in society's interests to get into a situation in which people may be injured by somebody in a car and discover that that car is not insured. That sort of crime is prevalent enough as it is without encouraging it by adding to the costs—not just the insurance tax itself, but the added-on costs which are to be incurred by the industry in administering the tax.
For the Minister to claim that the cost is not important is astounding. I hope that he will have reflected for the past


40 minutes or so on the ill-advised nature of that remark and perhaps he will withdraw it. The Minister also said that the tax is mildly progressive. Again, that is surprising. The Minister cited the example of poor people who are living in small houses. When we were discussing the abolition of domestic rates and the introduction of the poll tax—some Conservative Members may remember that fondly, some not so fondly—we were always being given the example of the poor widow who lived in the big house. Well, the poor widow who lives in a big house may have a larger insurance bill than someone living in a small house, yet the Paymaster General, who I do not remember being a rebel on the poll tax although I may be wrong and perhaps he will refresh our memory if he was—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was a Whip".] Indeed. He probably whipped his right hon. and hon. Friends into the Lobby to vote for the poll tax when those ridiculous arguments were being deployed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) said, many people on low incomes are being hit by high insurance bills and there is nothing that they can do to avoid them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, that is why it is important for us to return to the fundamental question—what is the Government's philosophy? They want people to be prudent and responsible, yet they are taxing people for that.
I know that other Ministers on the Treasury Bench are much given to philosophy these days. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is one of the most precious Ministers in this Government, tells us many things, including the fact that people have become cynical about our great institutions—whether the Conservative party, Parliament or anything else. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is another candidate for the Cabinet, is also given to philosophical discussions, although he appears to be a more traditional, Disraeli Tory.
Let us hear where the Paymaster General stands in this great moral debate and especially what he has to say about taxing responsibility and prudence. I am sure that he must have had something to say about it in his manifesto.
I am sure that the House would like to hear what the Government's philosophy is. Many of us believe that they are not bothered about philosophy when it comes to a frantic scrabble to raise tax to make ends meet. At the last election the Government told us that they had a deficit of £28 billion and that the recovery would start the day after the election. No doubt Conservative Members remember that. Yet we now have a £50 billion deficit and people are being hit by income tax increases and value added tax on fuel and are finding that their mortgage tax relief is being steadily reduced. Depite the fact that the Government condemned us for allegedly intending to reduce mortgage tax relief to 25 per cent., they will reduce it to 15 per cent. during the next few years.
Despite those tax increases the Government are coming back for more and more. People who cannot afford it are being hit by tax bills that they cannot avoid. That is why insurance is being taxed and why we debated the air tax yesterday. The Government are going for all the soft options, regardless of the consequences.
Perhaps the Paymaster General will be honest and tell us that the Government are not going for those taxes because of any philosophical problems but because they are engaged in a frantic and desperate search for further tax.
Will the Government tell us whether they intend to extend the scope or rate of the insurance tax? The Prime Minister got into difficulty when he said that he would not extend the scope or rate of value added tax. He was absolutely categorical about it. "Oh no, we are not going to increase it", he said. What is the Paymaster General going to say about the insurance tax? Will rate be altered in the life of this Parliament? Perhaps we could hear his answer in clear and unambiguous terms.

Sir John Cope: I must start by pointing out that the reason for the tax is that it will raise revenue from a sector which has relatively low indirect tax at the moment. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor concluded at the time and as other hon. Members have said since, such a tax was and is a sensible means of raising revenue—in the context of the Budget as a whole—by broadening the scope of indirect taxation. That is a direct remark of the sort that my right hon. and learned Friend is given to make. It was an honest remark and it explained the origin of the tax extremely clearly—it could not be clearer than that.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) quoted one of my most distinguished predecessors as Paymaster General, although admittedly he held the post at a time when the job was rather different and much more profitable than it is now. My predecessor said something that was extremely true:
To tax and to pleas …e is not given to men
It was right and fair that the hon. Gentleman should quote that.
The insurance sector is currently subject to little indirect tax. This tax represents a further contribution to the Government's long-term strategy of shifting the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation. It generates what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) called "very little revenue". I do not see it that way. It generates a significant amount of revenue—approximately £775 million in a full year—and, in doing so, makes a valuable contribution to tackling the Budget deficit.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) asked about the future rate and scope of the tax. The current rate has been chosen after careful consideration of all the factors involved: the impact on taxpayers; the effect on the industry; the other matters that arise out of the amendment; and the yield to which I referred. We believe, and the Chancellor believes, that it is the right rate for this tax. I am not forecasting future Budgets. No Treasury Minister can do so at any stage, and I shall not do so this evening, but that is how we chose the right rate.
At one point in the debate I was complimented on recommending the tax on the ground that it was mildly progressive. At other times I have been attacked for making remarks on a similar basis, as I was even in this short debate. The point that I was making was that, as the family expenditure survey shows, the poorest 20 per cent. of households will pay only about 7p a week. I recognise that that is an average. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), described individual cases where expenditure varied from that. That is true of every form of expenditure.
However, the 7p a week for the poorest 20 per cent. of households contrasts with about 47p a week for the richest 20 per cent. of households. It seemed to come as a great insight to some hon. Members that high-income households pay more on insurance than low-income households. But that seems obvious. Indeed, high-income


households pay more on everything than low-income households, which is why taxes on expenditure tend to be progressive, as this tax is. That is an obvious fact of life.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Paymaster General taking account of the fact that a substantial number of low-income households will pay no tax at all simply because they cannot afford the premiums?

Sir John Cope: Yes, but that is the case now, as the hon. Lady rightly says. In introducing the insurance premium tax, we had to take account of average figures. That is not a novel factor that is somehow being introduced as a result of the insurance premium tax, but is the current position.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke about the position in Greater London where, according to the family expenditure survey, people pay an average of some 18 per cent. more for vehicles, building and contents insurance than people elsewhere in the United Kingdom. When that is translated into the 35p a week which 44 per cent. of households pay, there is not a tremendous difference between the overall burden on people in Greater London and the burden on people who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I readily accept, and have made no attempt to disguise my acceptance, that those are averages and that some individuals will be in a different position.
There has also been some discussion about the coverage of the tax, particularly in relation to medical health insurance and private health care. I made it clear that we consider it right to extend the tax to all general insurance. That includes private health care and credit insurance. By doing that, we can keep the rate to 3 per cent. and minimise the impact on everyone concerned.
I was asked also by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central about equalisation reserves. I understand that the Association of British Insurers is still in discussion with the DTI and Inland Revenue about a possible scheme for calculating equalisation reserves. Clearly, the outcome will be announced when those discussions have been completed, but I have noted the interest expressed in these matters by hon. Gentlemen during the debate.

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 327.

Division No. 98]
 [10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bayley, Hugh


Adams, Mrs Irene
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ainger, Nick
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bell, Stuart


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Bennett, Andrew F.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Austin-Walker, John
Blair, Tony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blunkett, David


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Boyes, Roland


Battle, John
Bradley, Keith





Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grocott, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gunned, John


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Khabra, Piara S.


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Ms Angela
Leighton, Ron


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Enright, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Litherland, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Livingstone, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fatchett, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Faulds, Andrew
Lynne, Ms Liz


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAllion, John


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Flynn, Paul
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCrea, Rev William


Foster, Don (Bath)
Macdonald, Calum


Foulkes, George
McFall, John


Fraser, John
McKelvey, William


Fyfe, Maria
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galbraith, Sam
McLeish, Henry


Galloway, George
Maclennan, Robert


Gapes, Mike
McMaster, Gordon


Garrett, John
McNamara, Kevin


George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Gerrard, Neil
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mahon, Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mandelson, Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Marek, Dr John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gordon, Mildred
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gould, Bryan
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Graham, Thomas
Martlew, Eric






Maxtor, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Meale, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Michael, Alun
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Short, Clare


Milburn, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mudie, George
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Murphy, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Edward
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Olner, William
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Parry, Robert
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Tyler, Paul


Pike, Peter L.
Vaz, Keith


Pope, Greg
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wallace, James


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Walley, Joan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Wareing, Robert N


Primarolo, Dawn
Watson, Mike


Purchase, Ken
Welsh, Andrew


Radice, Giles
Wicks, Malcolm


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Rendel, David
Winnick, David


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wise, Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Worthington, Tony


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wray, Jimmy


Rogers, Allan
Wright, Dr Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Young, David (Bolton SE-)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Salmond, Alex





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Body, Sir Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Booth, Hartley


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boswell, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butcher, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Peter


Bates, Michael
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Bendall, Vivian
Carttiss, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Churchill, Mr





Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Fit Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Stratrd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Elletson, Harold
King, Rt Hon Tom


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn)


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fry, Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew


Gallie, Phil
Maclean, David


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Madel, Sir David


Gill, Christopher
Maginnis, Ken


Gillan, Cheryl
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mates, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hague, William
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Milligan, Stephen


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moate, Sir Roger


Harris, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector






Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sproat, Iain


Moss, Malcolm
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Needham, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stephen, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stem, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West,
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Sweeney, Walter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sykes, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thomason, Roy


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pickles, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trimble, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Ward, John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waterson, Nigel


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speed, Sir Keith
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Michael Brown.

Question accordingly negatived.

The chairman then put forthwith the order questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at ten o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the bill.

The committee divided:Ayes 322, Noes 285.

Division No. 99]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bates, Michael


Ashby, David
Batiste, Spencer





Beggs, Roy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowden, Andrew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowis, John
Gamier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Alan


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)






Lidington, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luff, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Madel, Sir David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Mans, Keith
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Milligan, Stephen
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trend, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trimble, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wood, Timothy


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela



Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Michael Brown, and


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Austin-Walker, John


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)





Barnes, Harry
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Bayley, Hugh
Fraser, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Galbraith, Sam


Bell, Stuart
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Bennett, Andrew F.
Garrett, John


Benton, Joe
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blair, Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grocott, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gunnell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Cariile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dononoe, Brian H.
Khabra, Piara S.


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Ms Angela
Leighton, Ron


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Enright, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Litherland, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Livingstone, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fatchett, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Faulds, Andrew
Lynne, Ms Liz


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAllion, John


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Flynn, Paul
McCartney, Ian






McCrea, Rev William
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Macdonald, Calum
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McFall, John
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, Jeff


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McLeish, Henry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


McMaster, Gordon
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mandelson, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Simpson, Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Spearing, Nigel


Milburn, Alan
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wallace, James


O'Hara, Edward
Walley, Joan


Olner, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watson, Mike


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L.
Wigley, Dafydd


Pope, Greg
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wilson, Brian


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Wise, Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Worthington, Tony


Purchase, Ken
Wray, Jimmy


Radice, Giles
Wright, Dr Tony


Randall, Stuart
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Raynsford, Nick



Redmond, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Rendel, David
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72

PERSONAL ALLOWANCE

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 321, Noes, 284.

Division No. 100]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)





Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Beggs, Roy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallic, Phil


Bowden, Andrew
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garnier, Edward


Brandreth, Gyles
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Cheryl


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Hicks, Robert


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Elletson, Harold
Knapman, Roger


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui






Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Legg, Barry
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luff, Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Speed, Sir Keith


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel, Sir David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trimble, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Waterson, Nigel


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Richards, Rod
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Robathan, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)





Allen, Graham
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Alton, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E,)
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Austin-Walker, John
Flynn, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Battle, John
Fraser, John


Bayley, Hugh
Fyfe, Maria


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Galbraith, Sam


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart
Gapes, Mike


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
George, Bruce


Benton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Berry, Dr. Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blair, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Gordon, Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Gould, Bryan


Boyes, Roland
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hain, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Hall, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Khabra, Piara S.


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Ms Angela
Leighton, Ron


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Enright, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Litherland, Robert






Livingstone, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Rendel, David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAllion, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAvoy, Thomas
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McCartney, Ian
Rogers, Allan


McCrea, Rev William
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Salmond, Alex


Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McMaster, Gordon
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Milburn, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tyler, Paul


Mudie, George
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walley, Joan


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Hara, Edward
Watson, Mike


Olner, William
Welsh, Andrew


O'Neill, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Pope, Greg
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wray, Jimmy


Prescott, John
Wright, Dr Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Purchase, Ken



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

MORTGAGE INTEREST RELIEF ETC.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 332, Noes 251.

Division No. 101]
[10.42 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alton, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Ancram, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arbuthnot, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)





Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Beggs, Roy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Booth, Hartley
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Fry, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Gillan, Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butler, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Harvey, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Alan


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Couchman, James
Horam, John


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Duncan, Alan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Eggar, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Elletson, Harold
Key, Robert






Kilfedder, Sir James
Robathan, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knapman, Roger
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Brewash)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Legg, Barry
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luff, Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Speed, Sir Keith


McCrea, Rev William
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trimble, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Tyler, Paul


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Wallace, James


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waterson, Nigel


Pickles, Eric
Watts, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


Rendel, David
Willetts, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Richards, Rod
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark





Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Michael Brown and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Etherington, Bill


Adams, Mrs Irene
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Austin-Walker, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galbraith, Sam


Bayley, Hugh
Galloway, George


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Garrett, John


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Godsiff, Roger


Berts, Clive
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blair, Tony
Gordon, Mildred


Blunkett, David
Gould, Bryan


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hain, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Hall, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mdn)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davidson, Ian
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S.


Dixon, Don
Kilfoyle, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leighton, Ron


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lewis, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Litherland, Robert


Enright, Derek
Livingstone, Ken






Llwyd, Elfyn
Morgan, Rhodri


Loyden, Eddie
Morley, Elliot


McAllion, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


McAvoy, Thomas
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


McCartney, Ian
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Macdonald, Calum
Mullin, Chris


McFall, John
Murphy, Paul


McKelvey, William
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Mackinlay, Andrew
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


McLeish, Henry
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Maclennan, Robert
O'Hara, Edward


McMaster, Gordon
Olner, William


McNamara, Kevin
O'Neill, Martin


Madden, Max
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Mahon, Alice
Parry, Robert


Mandelson, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


Marek, Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Pope, Greg


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Martlew, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Maxton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Meacher, Michael
Purchase, Ken


Meale, Alan
Radice, Giles


Michael, Alun
Randall, Stuart


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Raynsford, Nick


Milburn, Alan
Redmond, Martin


Miller, Andrew
Reid, Dr John


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)





Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Vaz, Keith


Rooney, Terry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salmond, Alex
Watson, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Clare
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wray, Jimmy


Spearing, Nigel
Wright, Dr Tony


Spellar, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevenson, George
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Stott, Roger
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Strang, Dr. Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill (Clauses 28, 46, 72 and 77) reported, without amendment.

Gas Supplies (Wales)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Peter Hain: Although 84 per cent. of homes of Wales are within 100 yards of a gas supply, 173,000 households still have no access to gas. Those who lose out include part of my home village of Resolven known as the Site, which British Gas is refusing to supply despite the fact that the rest of the village has gas installed, and has had so for a number of years. The Dulais valley villages of Seven Sisters, Onllwyn and Banwen and the villages of Cwmllinfell, Rhifawr and lower Brynamman in the Swansea valley do not have a gas supply. Those villages are in my constituency. There are other surrounding villages in the same predicament.
The question is why. First, it is a consequence of privatisation and the Government's failure to implement a regulatory regime to protect outlying areas, including valley villages. Many of these are former coal-mining areas where the cost and difficulty of obtaining coal because of the rundown of the coal industry is a major problem. It is also inconvenient for elderly citizens to rely on coal in the current circumstances.
I cite the case of Mrs. Sally Pascoe, an 87-year-old widow in the village of Seven Sisters. She finds it very difficult to rely on coal, and would like the opportunity to have gas. She lives in the Dulais valley where gas has recently been extended to halfway up the valley as far as Crynant—a few miles away from the village of Seven Sisters, which is denied gas supply.
There are 1,400 homes without gas supply in the Dulais valley in Seven Sisters, Banwen and Onllwyn. In response to a request from me, British Gas has asked for a sum of £910 from each home in the villages to fund the £1 million cost of supplying and installing the pipeline. Such an amount is impossible for residents of those villages who are, by and large, on extremely low incomes.
Among these homes are 400 properties owned by Neath borough council. Recently, the council installed central heating systems at considerable cost. It is impossible for the council to fund £910 for each property under its responsibility. British Gas does not think that customers will take up the opportunity of gas supply at such a high installation charge, which is the only one that it is prepared to make.
In the upper Swansea valley, the villagers of Cwmllinfell are in a similar predicament. Recently they presented me with a petition, which I sent to the Welsh Office and to British Gas. British Gas told me that it would cost some £2 million to lay piping to the residents, and that they would each be charged more than £500. It is impossible for them be bear that cost, given the income and demographic population in the village, which comprises many elderly residents. British Gas also claims that it would need to upgrade the existing network in the surrounding area to cope with the extra volume of supplying villages such as Cwmllinfell, and such upgrading would not be completed for at least two years.
There is an additional. problem. A number of the villages were promised natural gas supply and installed liquefied petroleum gasoline systems some seven years ago on the understanding that natural gas would be available in a few years, but privatisation has completed scotched that

opportunity and the villages have been saddled with LPG, which costs twice as much as natural gas. I cite the case of Mrs. Laverne West and her husband Brian, who have a bill of £1,600. When value added tax is imposed from April, it will go up a further £2·50 per week, and when the full VAT increase comes in it will be an extra £5·50 a week. That is an incredible heating cost to bear for such a couple.
Then there is the case of Mrs. Margaret Thomas, who has chronic asthma and arthritis. She is paying £25 per week in gas charges because of this expensive LPG scheme, which she expected to be replaced by a natural gas scheme until privatisation came along and killed that hope.
Gas is supplied near to those families to the villages of Gwaun-cae-Gurwen and up to the Gurnos roundabout at Ystalyfera. We are not talking about a major pipeline installation project, but about the demand for gas which is supplied only a few miles away. Yet British Gas says that it is far too expensive. It also claims that, under the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 1986, it is not allowed to subsidise access for new customers.
That undermines the principle of essential service, which means universal access for every customer who requires it. Again, that is a direct consequence of the privatisation of British Gas, where the public interest has been relegated below the interests of private shareholders and the imperatives of competition which drive the regulatory regime.
One result of that is direct discrimination in, for example, Lampeter where 800 customers were supplied by British Gas on a spur pipeline. British Gas had to invest £1 million in 1992 to upgrade that spur, or at least a section of it. British Gas told me that it would expect to invest a further £1·5 million in 1995 to upgrade and maintain the remaining section of the pipeline to Lampeter.
British Gas has also stated that it will never recover the capital investment in commercial terms, and that it is doing it only because it has a statutory obligation to supply existing customers. Yet there are similar amounts needed to supply new customers; for example, £1 million in the case of Dulais valley or up to £2 million in the case of the upper Swansea valley. The regulatory system is being pursued by the Government and implemented by British Gas and it is directly discriminating against new customers. Old customers, on the other hand, can be effectively subsidised on commercial criteria in the case of Lampeter. That discrimination is completely indefensible and against the public interest.
It is also, in my view, short sighted. Extending supply could make it more attractive for new industry to come into areas of high unemployment and deprivation, such as the upper Swansea valley and the upper Dulais valley. That could increase the wealth of the community and increase the standards of living of local residents. They would be encouraged to consume more, which would open up new markets. That would be a complete antidote to the short-termism which drives British Gas's policy under the regime put in place by the Government.
The regulatory regime results in cherry picking and social dumping. The cherry picking is a result of British Gas being driven by competitive forces, with new competitors encouraged by the regulator yapping at its heels. Those forces have driven British Gas to supply highly profitable customers—large houses, industrial units, city centres and urban concentrations—rather than outlying areas where it is difficult to make a profit. Those areas thus become the victims of social dumping.
From British Gas's standpoint, the recent changes which followed the Monopoly and Mergers Commission report mean that there is extra competition. An argument which has been put to me and which is hard to dispute is that British Gas could invest in a new pipeline and then find that a competitor comes in and creams off the market and all the customers. While British Gas would have invested all of the money up front, the benefits would be denied to it.
The villages are being penalised and discriminated against because of the regime that the Government have put in place governing British Gas. From December 1992, British Gas has made sure that consumer contribution to pipeline or outfill projects has gone up by 80 per cent. Every new customer has been required to pay much more to have gas brought to them than has been the case in the past.
That brings me to an alternative solution, given that British Gas seems unable to provide one because of the regulatory regime bearing down on it continuously in a way which makes it difficult to meet the demands. What about the possibility of grant aid? I have taken up that matter with the Welsh Office, and I have had correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State and with the Secretary of State. I am informed that such projects for installing pipelines up the valleys are not eligible for urban aid because they are residential rather than industrial projects.
The alternative is to consider the possibility of a European grant. Again, I am informed that such projects would not be eligible because of privatisation and I cannot dispute that fact. Prior to privatisation, British Gas Wales was eligible to apply for European regional development funding for 30 per cent. of key infrastructure improvements. Indeed, in the seven years prior to privatisation British Gas received more than £15 million from European grants to assist with pipeline improvements, but it has not been eligible since. That is a direct and discriminatory consequence of the Government's policy of privatising British Gas. It is ridiculous because other countries have benefited from European money. For instance, Portugal was given a grant of £78 million to develop a natural gas terminal at Setubal and a pipeline northwards. In correspondence with British Gas, the Secretary of State said that such an option would be denied to Wales because of privatisation and also because Wales and the rest of Britain is not, like Portugal, an objective 1 region in European Community terms, although it should be because Wales is the poorest part of mainland Britain and thus should be eligible for such grants.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales pointed out in a letter to me today—I am grateful to him for supplying it before this debate—that
privatised bodies are required to comply with the 'Solima' criteria
under European grant terms, which means that domestic customers would be denied such grant aid because it is applicable only to so-called economic and industrial developments in the region. I argue that that is a narrow definition of eligibility. If one upgrades a residential community, industry will be able to invest in those villages, which are industrial as they are former mining villages. Industry would be much more likely to invest if the villages had gas and it had the opportunity to use it.
The Under-Secretary should give us an assurance that the Government will seek a reform of the European development fund criteria. I hope that he can give me that promise so that villages such as mine are not in future denied grant aid from Europe.
The Welsh Office must put considerable pressure on the European Union to assist outlying areas throughout Wales, where so many tens of thousands of villagers are denied gas, which is the cheapest form of energy. It must also put pressure on the Union to ensure that the regulations are reformed, so that grant aid is provided to assist with such installations and British Gas can have a detailed programme, which provides everyone in Wales, and certainly everyone in the valleys, with the gas that they want.
The European question has another dimension. In a recent letter to Mr. David Morris, a Member of the European Parliament, the Regional Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan, said:
Under the current Community Support Frameworks for the United Kingdom there is no provision for funding gas supply networks. Only on-site infrastructure for industrial and business premises is eligible for funding.
He goes on to say that that could
be a matter for discussion
within the European Community and that if the British Government made any proposals they would be considered. He does not prejudge the outcome, but invites the British Government to propose changes in the European grant criteria, which would enable British Gas to benefit.
I am making a direct request across the Chamber to the Under-Secretary of State and through him to the Government to lobby the European Commission and meet with Mr. Millan and other Commissioners to change the criteria, so that villagers in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom can benefit from European grant aid for such infrastructure investment. British Gas recognises that there is a strong case for the provision of natural gas to deprived communities—not least because it is comparatively cheaper than other fuels.
In conclusion, as a local Member of Parliament I have become extremely frustrated at the buck-passing between the Welsh Office, the European Community and British Gas. I have been corresponding on the matter for over a year. I do not quarrel about the energy with which the Welsh Office has responded to my pressure and requests, but I complain about the frustration of a local Member of Parliament who finds that everybody is passing the buck up and down the line.
I call on the Government, together with British Gas, to resolve this matter as soon as possible and supply gas up the Dulais and upper Swansea valleys. The sums involved are relatively trivial. Compared with the profits made by British Gas, they are petty cash—a million here and a million there. The Welsh Office should immediately lobby the European Community to change the criteria by which European grant aid is provided. If that is not done, valley villagers and tens of thousands of others throughout Wales and no doubt elsewhere in Britain must conclude that they are the victims of privatisation and Government indifference.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on securing this important debate, especially at such a civilised hour.
It may be helpful if I begin by outlining the changes that have occurred within the European structural fund arena, which I hope will clarify the position with regard to utilities and the hon. Gentleman's specific concerns in respect of domestic users.
Current European structural fund support in Wales is implemented through European Commission-approved community support frameworks. These focus on the conversion of regions seriously affected by industrial decline within objective 2 areas, such as industrial south Wales and Clwyd, and the promotion of the development of rural aeas within objective 5b, as in the case of Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys.
Prior to 1989, not since privatisation as the hon. Gentleman suggested, when community support frameworks were first introduced, the European Commission was responsible for approving numerous single projects to aid the economic development of Wales. These included support for various gas projects to aid industry. However, after a review of the structural funds, which was completed in 1988, the European Council approved Commission proposals for co-ordinating and targeting structural funds on areas most in need. The principles of the review were to concentrate on five priority objectives: to encourage partnership; to introduce consistency, particularly with the member state's economic policies; to improve administration of the funds; a switch from a project-based to a programme-based approach; and, finally, to simplify monitoring. The five priority objectives were agreed for the funds, each of which was allocated a block of resources but with a large proportion of the funds targeted at objective 1 areas, such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and the Republic of Ireland.
Objective 1 designated areas were allocated funds appropriate to promoting the development and structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind. Their community support frameworks allow for the introduction of natural gas infrastructure. It is important to recognise that both the ethos and the quantum of funds available require different approaches to the problems of different areas, and in particular require a different emphasis in preparing and implementing programmes. In Wales, the community support frameworks approved for objectives 2 and 5b involve promoting the synergy of varying measures to maximise the economic development of the areas concerned with the funds available.
The introduction of more focused structural funds programmes has an important reference for privatised utilities in the United Kingdom. The Commission insisted that applications for investment in infrastructure by privatised bodies should be subject to a strict set of conditions known as the Solima criteria. First, there must be statutory or similar control of the body concerned; secondly, the aid must result in investment to the benefit of consumers or users of the infrastructure; thirdly, aid will be pitched at a level reflecting the extent to which a subsidy is necessary to ensure the investment is undertaken; and, fourthly, retention of infrastructure in public use during its economic life will normally be required.
These criteria address the Commission's concern that European regional development fund grant should not benefit non-eligible users, and that the grant should take into account the probable return on the investment and thus be pitched at a level that is strictly necessary to allow the project to proceed.
Any applications from privatised bodies entail very careful analysis of project proposals and a clear explanation of how any project proposed by a privatised body could meet the Solima criteria.
The ERDF grant is, if necessary, reduced to ensure that no grant is paid to any proportion of the investment estimated not to be for direct benefit to industry, commerce or tourism, and that no grant is paid for any proportion of the investment which could be financed out of future revenue from charges to the user of the infrastructure.
To qualify for ERDF assistance, projects must show a clear link between the project and the industrial and/or economic development of the area concerned and show that it will lead to a genuine improvement of facilities. They must be located within an area covered by an approved community support framework, be acceptable in terms of the relevant CSF, contribute to the objectives and targets of the relevant CSF and be undertaken by a body satisfying the eligibility criteria.
Against that background, I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the cost to his constituents of the possible extension of the gas mains system to Seven Sisters in the upper Dulais valley. I have considerable sympathy for his constituents and others he has described this evening. As such, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is well aware before tonight's debate that ERDF resources cannot be devoted to the provision of gas supplies that are either exclusively or primarily for domestic use. That is also the case for support from the strategic development scheme.
Gas supply schemes are eligible for SDS support if they fall as part of local authority sponsored infrastructure projects that will create or safeguard jobs—not if the scheme solely or primarily benefits domestic users.
British Gas is required by law under the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 1986 to secure a contribution from potential new customers towards the cost of making natural gas available. The formula takes into account the benefit to British Gas of gas sales which would follow the commissioning of the project, but is also designed to ensure that existing customers do not subsidise new customers.
British Gas maintains that its approach to providing mains extension is consistent throughout the country, and was in existence before privatisation. It is not a consequence of privatisation as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Hain: I cited the example of Lampeter where it was not a commercial investment; it is an existing customer base. Therefore, British Gas is required to provide a service and we would all expect that. Effectively, places like Seven Sisters are being discriminated against. Will the Minister concede that British Gas was eligible for European funding to the tune of £15 million before privatisation?

Mr. Jones: I have already covered the latter point. That was the position until 1989, after privatisation, but the regulatory regime under which British Gas has to operate now is the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 1986


which require it to treat all customers alike throughout the country and to ensure that existing customers must not subsidise new customers. That has been the practice not just since 1986 but was the practice before. The decision to proceed with such a scheme must therefore be a matter for the commercial judgment of British Gas.
Negotiations with the European Commission have determined the future shape and content of the structural fund. In Wales there will be two programme areas: objective 2 industrial south Wales and objective 5b rural Wales. Structural fund working groups are developing strategies for their respective areas.
Arising from the strategies are the specific future priorities that the partnership—those who are involved in putting together the objectives and applications—feels should receive support under the structural funds from January 1994 onwards. Those plans will have to be submitted to the Commission by the end of April 1994.
The European Commission will draw from those plans when establishing the community support framework for each eligible area and those frameworks will define the activities eligible for support in each area.
Utilities are mentioned in both strategies, although gas is not mentioned in particular. The plans recognise that improvements in the utilities would contribute to making industrial, commercial and tourism development more attractive. However, the fact that limited funds are available will necessitate rigorous selection procedures, and it is likely that any utility seeking funds for projects will be required to demonstrate clearly the benefits to economic development—notwithstanding the need to satisfy the Solima criteria.
Even if such activities are included in the community support frameworks, there is no guarantee that any particular area or project will benefit. Applications for European regional development fund assistance must accord with the priorities for regional economic

development included in the community support frameworks, and must undergo appraisal of their economic benefits to ensure that they are in keeping with the ERDF resources that would be deployed.
Although there is a need to ensure that safeguards are in place to avoid the possible distortion of competition through direct state aid—and to ensure that benefits accrue to the community rather than to private individuals—private-sector involvement in structural funds is to be welcomed. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, I stress that the Government are keen for the private sector to be more involved in the structural funds programmes. The introduction of the new programmes will allow a continuation—indeed, an expansion—of the partnership between the public and private sectors for jointly funded projects, which is encouraging.

Mr. Hain: The Minister has not answered one question. Is he prepared, on behalf of the Government, to take up Commissioner Millan's invitation to look afresh at the funding criteria? Will he promise that that will be done as a direct result of tonight's debate?

Mr. Jones: I have tried to describe the way in which the new plans applications are proceeding, which will involve community support frameworks. The partnership must deposit the plans with the Commission by April this year. It would, however, be wrong for me to promise too much to the hon. Gentleman: the utilities will be included, but not specifically gas. I envisage a continuation of the present arrangements. When we can indentify particular economic benefits in industrial, commercial or tourism categories, there may well be opportunities for utility applications. However, I think that the concepts are now well established, and I can foresee no direct application in, say, industrial south Wales for applications serving only domestic users. I am afraid that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman that consolation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock.